This is an interesting paper about some of the debates in feminism around the history of women and society. It's written from the feminist perspective by a feminist, but in many ways it argues against some of the issues that people in the men's community find troubling with feminism: patriarchy theory, and the post-structural or epistemological approach to history (which is the foundation for much of what we refer to as critical theory or "wokeism").

Patriarchy theory is of course the view that men work together to organize or control society to oppress women. And radical feminists have tried for a really long time to establish this as a fundamental pattern throughout all of human history.

The problem is this directly contradicts Marxist class theory, which posits that the ruling class oppresses the working class by extracting surplus value from them. In particular, the ruling class is made up of both men and women, and the working class is made up of both men and women. Men as a class do not oppress women as a class. And logically speaking, patriarchy theory and Marxist class theory cannot both be true at the same time.

At the core of the paper is an analysis of gender segregation during the rise of capitalism and industrialization in the UK. Many feminists have tried to make the argument that men saw women as natural enemies in the workplace and sought to pass legislation to limit competition and force women into a more subservient role at home.

There are many factual problems with this interpretation though. Most notably is the fact that female employment actually increased through most of the industrial revolution, and the fact that men usually enjoyed and preferred the company of women at work. And when feminists have found evidence of men supposedly flexing their muscles to force women out of the workplace, a more sober analysis usually finds other conclusions.

In particular, most of the cited examples come from the context of worker's rights and the broader socialist movement, where women and children often got the better end of the deal with protective legislation that often excluded men (who were sometimes part of the legislation during earlier drafts but then left out later). While it's true that this did have the effect of pushing some women out of the workforce and into the home, which did establish a kind of "patriarchal" division of labor that became stereotypical in middle class families in the 20th century, the author sees this as a natural consequence and outcome of historical trends during this period. And indeed something of a benefit or trade-off for women, especially in the context of maternity and child birth. Not some kind of conspiracy among men to establish patriarchal control over capitalism and industrial society. She also argues that the reintroduction of women as quasi breadwinners in the family unit later in the 20th century came about as a result of a breakdown in market stability inside of capitalism, not from feminist activism.

She refers to this interpretation of history as the materialistic interpretation, which draws heavily from Marxist class theory, and argues that it is overall superior to other feminist interpretations of history.

Sue Clegg (1997) The feminist challenge to socialist history, Women's History Review, 6:2, 201-214, DOI: 10.1080/09612029700200146

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09612029700200146