What do you think?
Rate this book
Women's Work, Men's Property: The Origins of Gender and Class
Exploring the sociohistorical roots of gender inequality
“To some a book on the origins of sexual inequality is absurd. Male dominance seems to them a universal, if not inevitable, phenomenon that has been with us since the dawn of our species. The essays in this volume offer differing perspectives on the development of sex-role differentiation and sexual inequality, but share a belief that these phenomena did have social origins, origins that must be sought in sociohistorical events and processes.”
In this way Stephanie Coontz and Peta Henderson introduce a book which fills a yawning gap in Marxist and feminist theory of recent years.
Women’s Work, Men’s Property brings together specialist historical and anthropological skills of a group of American and French feminists to examine the origins of the sexual division of labor, the nature of pre-state kinship societies, the position of women in slave-based societies, and the specific forms taken by the oppression of women in archaic Greece.
Women’s Work, Men’s Property will be welcomed by teachers and students of women’s studies and anyone with an interest in the biological, psychological and historical roots of sexual inequality.
“To some a book on the origins of sexual inequality is absurd. Male dominance seems to them a universal, if not inevitable, phenomenon that has been with us since the dawn of our species. The essays in this volume offer differing perspectives on the development of sex-role differentiation and sexual inequality, but share a belief that these phenomena did have social origins, origins that must be sought in sociohistorical events and processes.”
In this way Stephanie Coontz and Peta Henderson introduce a book which fills a yawning gap in Marxist and feminist theory of recent years.
Women’s Work, Men’s Property brings together specialist historical and anthropological skills of a group of American and French feminists to examine the origins of the sexual division of labor, the nature of pre-state kinship societies, the position of women in slave-based societies, and the specific forms taken by the oppression of women in archaic Greece.
Women’s Work, Men’s Property will be welcomed by teachers and students of women’s studies and anyone with an interest in the biological, psychological and historical roots of sexual inequality.
230 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1986
18 people are currently reading
903 people want to read
About the author
Stephanie Coontz
19 books237 followersStephanie Coontz is director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, which she chaired from 2001 to 2004, and emeritus faculty of history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. She has written about gender, family, and history, and her writings have been translated into a dozen languages.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 22, 2021
A collection of 5 essays (and a lengthy introduction) parsing the origins of the patriarchy and it’s repercussions in forming class society. 3 of the 5 essays I found very good, particularly the third essay entitled “Property Forms, Political Power, and Female Labour”, which for me was the star of the book. The second, and especially last essay, I found middling for different reasons. The last essay was especially a slog, being mired in references to Greek mythology that I just wasn’t equipped to analyze. Overall a solid but not amazing collection.
March 11, 2025
As a man, feminist theory always blows my mind and then I try to articulate it to my wife who just says 'yeah'. But I found the essay by Leibowitz on the further past origins of sexual inequality as well as the essay by Coontz and Henderson themselves particularly interesting. I don't usually consider arguments about human behavior that involves the comparison of animal behavior particularly compelling but the way Leibowitz weaves it almost satirically into a study of early man and the origins of production and exchange as a breeding ground of inequality especially noteworthy.
December 10, 2020
A book that traces back to the start of human civilisation to investigate how women and their work became men’s property. It discusses it from different academic fields such as biological, Greek mythology, and the start of communities and agriculture. It discusses lengthily the origins of matrilineal and patrilineal communities and how the initiation of trade or exchange saw the beginning of ownership and slaves.
This book is simply 5 research essays that are written in an academic manner, yet they are very readable and interesting!
This book is simply 5 research essays that are written in an academic manner, yet they are very readable and interesting!
October 9, 2019
Probably an easier read with more background in economics and anthropology. Academic, dry, feels interminable in places. Some interesting ideas, but I wish the person who'd recommended this had just handed me a summary.
July 19, 2019
I fooled myself looking at the cover - a closer read of the author list, the publisher, and the publication date would have made me realize this was more academic than I currently have the brainpower for.
December 11, 2024
This collection of essays attempts to explain the origin of women's oppression. The authors argue that it began with the sexual division of labor and specific kinship/property forms.
First let me say that the book frequently uses terms for sex and gender interchangeably. I don't know if this is justified. I think what they are really explaining is the origin of female oppression. I don't have enough experience with the subject matter to know if explaining female oppression is enough to explain women's oppression.
With that said, the book makes some good points. They expertly counter arguments based on a biologically deterministic view of human society. Males didn't end up hunting because they are inherently better at hunting or genetically predisposed to violence. They cite numerous examples of other sexually dimorphic primate species showing that male/female interactions vary widely depending on the circumstances.
In early human societies (10,000+ yrs ago) males and females performed the same tasks. Once they developed agriculture things began to change. With a reliable food source the high-risk, high-reward endeavor of hunting was more justifiable. With better tools, hunting no longer required as many people and was now focused on skill and patience. The products of hunting would require a lot of processing to be edible and usable. These both became tasks for experienced adults. Thus the first division of labor was based on age.
With reliable sources of food and increased consumption of protein and fat, female fertility increased. When pregnant or nursing, it was less practical for females to hunt. Sending males off to hunt and allowing females to handle agriculture and food processing made sense.
This division of labor freed up males to occupy political positions. They traveled more so they naturally came to control exchange with neighboring groups. The division of labor meant that societies in which males controlled female labor were better able to amass resources and prestige than those with more egalitarian arrangements.
Humbled by my lack of knowledge of our prehistoric ancestors and ancient civilizations. The section on ancient Greece was tough.
First let me say that the book frequently uses terms for sex and gender interchangeably. I don't know if this is justified. I think what they are really explaining is the origin of female oppression. I don't have enough experience with the subject matter to know if explaining female oppression is enough to explain women's oppression.
With that said, the book makes some good points. They expertly counter arguments based on a biologically deterministic view of human society. Males didn't end up hunting because they are inherently better at hunting or genetically predisposed to violence. They cite numerous examples of other sexually dimorphic primate species showing that male/female interactions vary widely depending on the circumstances.
In early human societies (10,000+ yrs ago) males and females performed the same tasks. Once they developed agriculture things began to change. With a reliable food source the high-risk, high-reward endeavor of hunting was more justifiable. With better tools, hunting no longer required as many people and was now focused on skill and patience. The products of hunting would require a lot of processing to be edible and usable. These both became tasks for experienced adults. Thus the first division of labor was based on age.
With reliable sources of food and increased consumption of protein and fat, female fertility increased. When pregnant or nursing, it was less practical for females to hunt. Sending males off to hunt and allowing females to handle agriculture and food processing made sense.
This division of labor freed up males to occupy political positions. They traveled more so they naturally came to control exchange with neighboring groups. The division of labor meant that societies in which males controlled female labor were better able to amass resources and prestige than those with more egalitarian arrangements.
Humbled by my lack of knowledge of our prehistoric ancestors and ancient civilizations. The section on ancient Greece was tough.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews