more on theory

I wanted to edit my last post, but I wasn't sure if that would change the date (making it late). I had trouble figuring out why I liked the theory I liked, but I thought about it some more and I think I can explain it better now. I think I like the socialist theory the best, because it believes that capitalism and patriarchy are responsible for the inequality of women. The reason I don't like the marxist theory is becasue I don't believe that capitalism is the only reason, and I disagree with the solution of having a revolution. Patriarchy needs to be included because before the industrail revolution, gender inequality still existed. The reason I think capitalism contributed to the inequality of women is that it creates inequality in the work place, and in the public sphere in general. The way the public sphere and private sphere are set up in our society creates inequality because the public sphere is more highly reguarded in our society and it is the place with all the power. Since we live in a patriarchail society, men get to be involved in the public sphere, and women anre involved in the less highly reguarded private one. There are some societies (I think there are some Native American examples) where women are involved in activities that are part of the public shpere such as making important political decisions. Capitalism makes it so that work is done outside the home for wages. Since work is done outside the home, if both women and men work, someone still has to take care of domestic work and caring for children. This creates a problem. Often the solution to the problem is that women do both, meaning that even when they do work oustide the home they are still at a disadvantage. One solution could be to have men do domestic work, but then they would be disadvantaged. If we lived in a subsistance economy (just as an example to compare agnst capitalism) both men and women would be working in the private shpere to survive and children would be with them so there wouldn't be the issue of who has to stay at home to take care of them. The work of men and women would have to be valued equally (for this type of economy to create equality). We would also have to understand that what's considered "women's" work and what's considered "men's" work is arbitrary. This would make people relize that the two sexes are equal and would also create more equality for lesbian couples. It would mean that two women can function just as well as a woman and a man can. It would also be more advantagous to single mothers becasue they would know that they don't need a man to survive, they can do the same jobs he can. They might need help from friends and family but not becasue they are a women, just becasue there is only one of them trying to raise a family. A single father would have the same disadvantage.
Another part of the public sphere that women has less power in is politics. The patriarchial nature of our society has left women out of politics for most of our history, because it was believed that women were inferior and unfit to be involved in important decision making. I believe that capitalism has reinforced that motion, becasue in a capitalist society, the ones who have all the power are the owners of production. Although today there are women CEO's and executives, the majority of them are men. Even with the same education oppritunities, there are women business majors, but far more of them are men. Ofcourse, changing the gender norms that girls are raised with would probably create more women business majors. However, I think that if the aqusition of profit wasn't the most important thing in our society, it would make equality of gender and class more likely. There is also the fact that since men were the ones with all the power during the industrail revolution, they are the ones who made all the big decisions that shaped our economy. If we created a new kind of economy, or atleast a new way of operating the one we have, and women are involved in the process this time, perhaps it wouldn't result in so much inequality. This would require a revolution, which I already said I'm not sure is such a good idea so I guess I'm back at square one. That's why I don't really know what the solution is. Maybe by if we keep studying the problem, we'll be albe to come up with one.