Capitalism and the “Feminization of Poverty”: A Marxist Perspective on Ending Women’s Oppression

By Radhika Miller

Republished from Liberation School.

Sexism is so endemic today that it can be difficult to imagine a society that does not degrade and devalue women. Modern capitalist society is a form of class society, and in today’s capitalist society women face sexism everywhere we turn — within our own homes and personal relationships, in school and in our professional careers, even as we walk down the street.

But this is not the way things always have been and, despite its prevalence in today’s society, the oppression of women is not a part of human nature. Sexism is not natural, which means we can eliminate it.

The oppression of women is rooted in a hierarchical system that values men over women, a system organized around patriarchal norms but that is much broader than patriarchy, in which the oppression of people is not based simply on sex but on class.

Class society the root of women’s oppression

For the vast majority of human history, society was organized around communal groups, and women were not specially oppressed. It was the emergence of class society that formed the foundation for patriarchal norms and the oppression of women.

Class society is the organization of society based on economic exploitation. People are separated into two classes with opposing interests: one is the group of people who own the means of production, who use this ownership of resources and productive forces to accumulate wealth unto themselves — the ruling class; the other class is the group of people who do not own the means of production, but who, through their labor, in fact produce the wealth of society — the laborers. The ruling class exploits the laboring class in order to amass wealth.

Feudalism and capitalism are two examples of class society. In a feudal society, serfs and peasants worked the land, but they did not own the land, and they did not keep the full value of what they produced. Much of the fruits of their labor were handed over to the lords, the landowners that were members of the ruling class that became rich off the land. In a capitalist society, workers produce goods and provide services, but they do not own factories and corporations. The capitalists who own the factories, banks and corporations, members of the ruling class, become rich by paying workers less than the value of the goods produced and lining their pockets with the difference — the profits.

Communal society

If we think of all of human history as one year, or 365 days, the duration of class society and patriarchy would be only five days — less than one week. For the vast majority of our existence, we lived in communal societies. In those societies, women and men performed different work, but all people were valued for their contributions to the survival of the group.

For thousands of years, humanity struggled together for survival in the face of scarcity and deprivation. There were no social classes based upon wealth or power, and no individuals or families amassed wealth; everything was owned by the communities as a whole. Each task was critical to survival and considered a communal responsibility. Hunting, gathering, building homes, child rearing and caring for elders — each of these tasks was valued as critical and was accomplished by members of the group working together rather than by individuals or individual familial units. An individual’s value to society was not based on their gender but rather on their ability to contribute to each of these critical tasks, tasks which may have been performed by different genders but were held in high esteem regardless.

In “The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Frederick Engels outlined the material reasons for why people lived communally:

A division of the tribe or of the gens into different classes was equally impossible. And that brings us to the examination of the economic basis of these conditions. The population is extremely sparse; it is dense only at the tribe’s place of settlement, around which lie in a wide circle first the hunting grounds and then the protective belt of neutral forest, which separates the tribe from others. The division of labor is purely primitive, between the sexes only. The man fights in the wars, goes hunting and fishing, procures the raw materials of food and the tools necessary for doing so. The woman looks after the house and the preparation of food and clothing, cooks, weaves, sews. They are each master in their own sphere: the man in the forest, the woman in the house. Each is owner of the instruments which he or she makes and uses: the man of the weapons, the hunting and fishing implements, the woman of the household gear. The housekeeping is communal among several and often many families. What is made and used in common is common property — the house, the garden, the long-boat.

Society at this stage was matrilineal: women, the organizers of food, shelter and child rearing, were the center of life. The lineage of any person was traced through the mother’s line. Children were not the sole responsibility of the biological mother and/or father but rather were linked by kinship to what we now refer to as extended family.

Class society produces inequality

As Engels explained, inequality emerged for the first time only after millennia of this communal, shared existence. With the emergence of surplus, wealth, and class society came the emergence of patriarchal society and the oppression of women. Over time, as the development of the tools and methods of production produced a surplus, one sector of society, primarily men as the primary hunters and organizers of animal husbandry, could hoard and accumulate wealth as private property.¹ Before the advent of private property, there was no special power or privileges associated with this type of labor. As explained above, all types of labor were valued as critical to survival of the community.

As the capacity to produce continued to grow beyond the minimum for survival, the social and productive relations of matrilineal pre-class societies weakened.

Mother-right was overturned, and men came to control the wealth and resources, using organized violence and redefined family institutions in the form of monogamous marriage to maintain their new position in society.

Engels describes the magnitude of this historical development:

The overthrow of mother-right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children. This degraded position of the woman, especially conspicuous among the Greeks of the heroic and still more of the classical age, has gradually been palliated and glossed over, and sometimes clothed in a milder form; in no sense has it been abolished.

The origins of violence against women and the denial of women’s right to control reproduction can be traced to this development. The overthrow of mother-right resulted in women essentially becoming the property of men. Female sexuality, once freely expressed, was now severely restricted in order to assure the “legitimate” line of descent from father to son for the purposes of inheritance. This was, in turn, tied to the emergence of class society itself, initially on the basis of slavery through warfare.

Engels explained:

The increase of production in all branches — cattle-raising, agriculture, domestic handicrafts — gave human labor-power the capacity to produce a larger product than was necessary for its maintenance. At the same time, it increased the daily amount of work to be done by each member of the gens, household community or single family. It was now desirable to bring in new labor forces. War provided them; prisoners of war were turned into slaves. With its increase of the productivity of labor, and therefore of wealth, and its extension of the field of production, the first great social division of labor was bound, in the general historical conditions prevailing, to bring slavery in its train. From the first great social division of labor arose the first great cleavage of society into two classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited.

Previously, the victors in war either killed or adopted those they defeated into their own tribes to contribute critical tasks of survival, but now, they enslaved the losers in order drive production and create wealth. Slavery was an early form of class society. The development of productive forces and advent of private property set into motion: (1) the emergence of the male-controlled family; (2) the emergence of class society itself. These are closely related, and in the modern form of capitalism, inextricable.²

Women’s oppression in capitalist society

Women’s oppression has changed over time as economic exploitation has changed. Slavery, feudalism and capitalism all demonstrate the exploitation of people in class society. The oppression of women under capitalism manifests in a myriad of ways.

Capitalism is a class society driven by the generation of profits. The capitalist class owns the means of production. This includes the factories and resources required to produce material goods, which run the gamut from shoes to houses. Resources include the means to access fuels, like oil, and even necessities like water. Capitalist production requires the employment of both male and female laborers. Since its inception, working-class women have been drawn out of the isolated atmosphere of the home and into collective production. Some of the first factory workers were women.

And since its inception, capitalism has generated profits by exploiting and undervaluing women in the workplace to a greater degree than men. This directly affects economic status, both by underpaying women and by excluding them from higher paying positions — relegating them to “gendered” positions that are typically service-oriented and lower-paying.

In the United States, women work longer hours and make less money than men. Even though equal pay for equal work has been federal law since 1963, when compared to men with similar education, skills and experience, women earn less than 76 cents to the dollar. For women of color, this is closer to 50 cents. In fact, the average 25-year-old working woman will lose almost $500,000 due to unequal pay during her lifetime as a worker. Yet, she will pay the same for rent, food, utilities and services as her male counterpart. In addition, she is likely to pay more for necessities like health care and more likely to lose money when she is sick. In the United States, among working women earning less than $40,000 per year, up to half are without basic benefits, including secure, affordable health insurance, prescription drug coverage, pension or retirement benefits, or paid sick leave.

This inequality allows capitalism to thrive. Lower pay for a sector of workers — women — plays two critical roles: (1) This directly translates to greater profits because capitalists keep more of the value of the good or service by not paying as much to workers. (2) It also creates a division within the working class, pitting women and men against each other in the workplace because the availability of cheaper labor by women is a bargaining chip that allows capitalists to pay men less as well.

Beyond being underpaid in the workplace, women carry out a great amount of unpaid labor in capitalist society. This is because work like childcare, preparing food in the household and other similar work that was greatly valued in pre-communal society is not assigned a monetary value in capitalist society. Moreover, this work has been de-socialized. Often referred to as “the second shift,” what used to be a communal responsibility has become the onus of individual women to complete on top of the work they perform for pay outside the home. Of course, these tasks are no less necessary to survival to the workforce, regardless of gender. As critical tasks performed at no cost to the capitalists, this unpaid labor — the exploitation of women — is a great source of profit in capitalist society.

All of this makes women more likely to be poor. In 1978, professor Diana Pearce used the term “feminization of poverty” to describe trends in the standard of living in the United States. The fact that women perform unpaid labor, are more likely to perform lower-paying jobs, and that even when performing the same job are paid less means that under capitalism, women will always be poorer than their male counterparts simply because they are women. In the United States, almost 60 percent of adults with an income of less than half the poverty line are women. Black and Latina women have a much higher poverty rate than white women (generally two to three times as high).

In addition, the violence against women we see in today’s capitalist society is a vestige of women’s historic status as property — a status that emerged with and is inextricably tied to class society. Rather than a random or individual crime, violence against women is a symptom of women’s subordinate position in modern class society. The sheer magnitude of violence against women around the world, including in the most advanced capitalist societies speaks to this. In the United States, every two minutes a women is sexually assaulted and every six minutes one is raped. This amounts to about 200,000 victims per year, with 17 percent of women having survived a complete or attempted rape. Domestic violence is the greatest form of injury to women in the United States, more than all other causes combined.

Moreover, the emergence of “global capitalism” has meant that all of these manifestations of women’s oppression are being incorporated into business practices and imperialist military strategies worldwide.

Globally, women earn about 50 percent of what men earn and are the majority of the 1.5 billion people who survive on a dollar or less a day. In transnational sweatshops doing business under free-trade agreements like NAFTA, young women working for slave wages are routinely abused at work. Since 1993, more than 1,000 women and girls have been killed in Juarez, Mexico. Most were workers in the “maquiladora” factories in the free-trade zone in the U.S.-Mexico border. Around the world, one in three women has been beaten, forced into sex or abused in her lifetime.

Despite militant struggle and the many hard-fought gains of the women’s liberation movement, oppression continues on a broad scale, and every gain faces the threat of being rolled back. In the United States, one of every two women experience sexual harassment at school or work; homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women; women’s health care rights, including reproductive rights, are increasingly under attack; and although abortion is legal, there are no abortion providers in 83 percent of U.S. counties. Critical programs like childcare, housing, education and health care are constantly under attack, if not outright denied or zeroed out.

In cases of violence against women, the police and the courts find every excuse to avoid punishing the perpetrator. Every stage is a struggle: to have it recorded as a crime, to force an investigation, to force a prosecution, to force a trial, to win a conviction. Even when a woman wins at all of these stages, her subjugation by society remains ever apparent. That is what happened in the recent and notorious Stanford rape case, in which, despite his conviction by a jury for raping an unconscious woman and a request by prosecutors for six years, Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Brock Allen Turner to only six months in jail. Persky’s reason: a prison sentence would have a severe impact on Turner, and he would not be a danger to others.

Under capitalism, feminists fight for — and can win — important rights and equality under the law. But capitalism relies on the subordination of sectors of the working class, including women. Without a state and society determined to enforce equal rights, and determined to deem the subordination of women and violence against women unacceptable — in the eyes of society and in the demonstrated enforcement of law — women will remain oppressed. This is exactly why a woman becoming president of the United States does not signal the liberation of women. The state she would lead is a capitalist state. It is a state constructed to uphold, what is necessary to uphold capitalism — exploitation, inequality and oppression — not to eliminate them. This is exactly why the full liberation of women is not possible within the capitalist system.

Socialism lays the basis for women’s liberation

Socialism lays the basis for two necessary steps toward women’s liberation: (1) removing the inextricable motivation for women’s oppression — the need to exploit workers in order to generate profits; and (2) building a society and state committed to combatting oppression, and not just recognizing but also enforcing the equality of all workers.

In regards to this Sarah Sloan noted at a Party for Socialism and Liberation conference in 2014:

Socialist revolutions have not happened in rich societies but in the poorest parts of the world. At the time of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Russian economy was one-twelfth the size of the U.S. economy. By eliminating the profits for a tiny handful of capitalists, even a poor country like the Soviet Union, managed by the 1930s, to provide every worker with the right to a job and the right to free health care.

By 1960, the Soviet Union had emerged as the second-biggest economy in the world. There was no unemployment and there was a right to housing — to pay no more than 6 percent of your income for rent. Evictions were illegal because there were no landlords. It was your housing.

Women had a right to free childcare and one year’s paid maternity leave, and they had the right to put their child in child care facilities at no cost. Women in the Soviet Union had the right to retire at 55 years of age at half pay. And remember, they had free health care, so retirement didn’t mean being plunged into poverty. They had a month’s paid vacation.

It doesn’t mean that there were no problems in the Soviet Union, or that we agree with all the policies of different leaderships. But the Soviet Union proved, just as Cuba proves today, that when you take the wealth out of the hands of the capitalists, it can be used to meet people’s needs.

Socialist Cuba has made enormous strides in combatting women’s oppression since its revolution in 1959, which was declared socialist in 1961. And, as women leaders there often state, there is still much work to be done to achieve full equality.

In 1966, Fidel Castro spoke at the fifth national plenum of the Cuban Women’s Federation. Aware of the challenges that face a new socialist society after the overthrow of the ruling class, he described the fight against women’s oppression as a revolution within the socialist revolution. The vestiges of capitalist society’s special oppression of people based on race and gender cannot be simply swept away with a revolution. The revolution begins the work of undoing those vestiges.

However, there is no comparison between the capitalist society of the United States and the socialist one of Cuba. Cuban women are guaranteed housing, health care, education and employment. Men and women are guaranteed parental leave for up to one year. Reproductive rights, abortion and birth control, for example, are legal and provided for by the national health care system. These are just a few examples but they are illustrative.

The United States has no guaranteed paid parental leave. Reproductive rights are constantly under attack. Housing, education, health care and employment are not considered rights.

We fight for reforms and struggle for full liberation through socialism

What, then, is women’s liberation? The term evokes images of women leading marches, rallies, strikes and hunger strikes to demand the right to vote, to demand safe working conditions, to demand equal pay, the right to abortion and reproductive freedom; women standing together to demand an end to sexism and against sexual assault. It is marked by militant struggle in the face of extreme repression and by victories in the recognition of rights and changes in societal attitudes. The women’s liberation movement militantly struggles for equal rights and status for women.

As revolutionary feminists, we must embrace the militancy of the women’s liberation movement and carry it forward. We must remain strong and unwavering in our demand for equal rights. It is critical to fight for as many rights recognized by law, for as many legal reforms, for as many changes in society thought and action as possible. All of this eases the oppression faced by women.

As socialists, we also understand that while militant struggle can win important rights in capitalist society, the women’s liberation struggle reaches beyond the goal of equal rights. It is telling that after centuries of struggle, women still do not have equal rights under the law. What is even more telling is the other component of the struggle — that capitalist society continues to subject women to patriarchal norms; that in capitalist society, women remain oppressed.

When a society is built upon exploitation, as capitalism is, equality is contradictory to the system. This is the very reason why — even in the face of militant struggle — women do not have equal rights, and why even the rights we do have are rarely enforced and continuously threatened and eroded by legislatures and courts, instruments of the capitalist ruling class. Capitalism relies on social constructs, such as race and gender, to support the exploitation of groups of people that is necessary to generate profits froms the labor of workers. By reclaiming political power from the capitalists, we attack the root of all bigotry and inequality based on these social constructs. In doing so, we lay the basis for the full liberation of women and all oppressed people.

Endnotes

1. Women also participated in hunting, but men were the primary hunters and controllers of the process of the domestication of animals.

2. The emergence of class society not only led to the oppression of women, it is also the root of LGBTQ oppression and bigotry. Maintaining the concentration of wealth in the upper class requires children who can inherit that wealth — same-sex relationships became valueless, although they naturally have continued. As is the oppression of women, the oppression of LGBTQ people is inextricably tied to today’s capitalist society.

Juneteenth: A Marxist Perspective

By Scott Cooper

Republished from Left Voice.

The United States, like all of the Americas, was built on the backs of enslaved labor, by the labor of people ripped from their homelands and brought to stolen lands. On Juneteenth, we celebrate the emancipation of the last of the enslaved Black people in the United States, as well as remember and commit to fight against the legacy of slavery. In the midst of the current uprising, this is more important than ever.

Socialists have a long history of fighting against slavery. Karl Marx, who wrote extensively about the Civil War and slavery in the United States, made it abundantly clear that enslaved Black people in North America had to be free before all the wage slaves of the working class could be free of exploitation.

Marx and the Abolition of Slavery

The materialist conception of history developed by Marx explains that human society progresses through different stages that are characterized by the material conditions of production. The Union states represented a more progressive stage in which capitalism was developing the productive forces and in which Black people were not held in bondage. The Confederacy remained in a backward stage, with vestiges of property relations that had long been overturned in Europe. The capitalists waging a war to free slaves from their bondage, with the support of the Northern working class, was to Marx, therefore, progressive.

In a letter from London dated December 10, 1861, Marx made clear that the “slavery question” was “the question underlying the whole Civil War.” Marx was a staunch supporter of a Union victory in the Civil War, and not because he supported the Northern capitalists. He argued against those who advocated simply letting the South’s secession stand and letting the Confederacy constitute itself as a new country. Marx vehemently opposed the Southern slavocracy, which profited from the hyper-exploitation of Black people and worsened conditions for workers and oppressed people as a whole. Slavery’s place was the dustbin of history. To Marx, there could be no emancipation for the proletariat while slavery continued to exist. 

Marx also made clear that the fight to free enslaved Black people in America was inextricably linked to the fight to free the entire working class from what he called wage slavery — working people having to sell their labor for 8, 10, 12 hours a day in order to survive. The fight to crush the Confederacy, for Marx, was not about the “dissolution of the Union,” but against what he saw as the true objective of the slavocracy: 

[R]eorganization on the basis of slavery, under the recognized control of the slaveholding oligarchy … The slave system would infect the whole Union. In the Northern states, where Negro slavery is in practice unworkable, the white working class would gradually be forced down to the level of helotry. This would fully accord with the loudly proclaimed principle that only certain races are capable of freedom, and as the actual labor is the lot of the Negro in the South, so in the North it is the lot of the German and the Irishman, or their direct descendants.

Revolutionary socialists view Juneteenth through the prism of Marx’s analysis. Abolishing slavery was a revolutionary act to free Black people from the most brutal bondage. It was also a victory for the working class as a whole. Marx said it directly:

The present struggle between the South and North is, therefore, nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labor. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side-by-side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other.

Marx saw the defeat of the slave system as a prerequisite for building a revolutionary struggle to overturn capitalism. If humanity was to advance, a social and economic order based on slavery had to be destroyed everywhere.

The Road to Juneteenth

Before the Civil War broke out, there had already been numerous slave rebellions and insurrections in the United States. Documentary evidence suggests at least 250 uprisings or attempted uprisings involving 10 or more slaves, beginning in the 16th century. In 1800, an enslaved man by the name of Gabriel (now known as Gabriel Prosser) planned a large slave rebellion in the area of Richmond, Virginia — but news got out and he and 25 of his followers were hanged. Prosser had learned to read, and the Virginia legislature henceforth prohibited educating slaves who might, like Gabriel, be inclined to use their skills for similar purposes. Another enslaved man in Charleston, South Carolina named Denmark Vesey was executed in 1822 for planning a slave revolt in that city. In 1831, a rebellion of fugitive slaves led by Nat Turner in Southampton, Virginia, killed more than 50 white people but was put down after a few days; Turner went into hiding but was discovered more than two months later. Some 21 of the rebels were hanged and another 16 were sold away from the region.

Such slave insurrections were a prelude to the Civil War. The war itself was full of Black soldiers and sailors. In fact, by war’s end, roughly 179,000 Black men had served as soldiers in the U.S. Army — accounting for about 10 percent of the total forces — and another 19,000 served in the Navy. The Civil War took the lives of nearly 40,000 soldiers, three-fourths of whom died not in combat but from infections or disease.

These combatants served bravely and were clearly a vital component of the Union war effort. Among them were the enlisted members of the famous 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. Many enslaved Black people who ran away from Southern plantations to Union encampments enlisted in the Army to fight against their former owners — with weapons supplied to them by the U.S. government. These actions by Black slaves forced President Abraham Lincoln’s hand. Originally, Lincoln insisted the war was not about slavery — despite every document of the Confederacy making clear the exact opposite — but an effort to save the Union. But as former slaves rose up against their masters and joined the war effort, Lincoln could either embrace them as allies in the war or continue to risk both a bloody war and a more widespread slave rebellion. Due to the actions of runaway slaves, Lincoln chose the former. 

Over a year into the war, on September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which would go into effect on the following January 1. It declared that enslaved Black peoples in the Confederate states were free. If they escaped across Union lines or were liberated by the advancing Union Army, they were permanently free. Of course, the Union went on to defeat the Confederacy — at the cost of between 620,000 and 750,000 lives. 

The proclamation wasn’t a full emancipation, even formally. It applied only to the 3.5 million slaves in the 10 states of the Confederacy and to all segments of the executive branch of the U.S. government, including the Army and Navy. It excluded the border slave states. It left a half-million enslaved people in bondage. But the fact that the proclamation was issued encouraged all those in slavery to rise up and fight, as well as to join the Union forces. This depleted the Confederacy’s labor force, which hurt the production of arms for the South’s rebellion.

The Emancipation Proclamation also brought to a halt the Confederacy’s campaign to win recognition from European countries, particularly England and France — both countries that were officially anti-slavery. But English textile mills needed Southern cotton; consequently capitalist pressure to recognize the Confederate States of America and open full trade was strong. Lincoln’s proclamation made it impossible for anyone to pretend that the war was about anything other than slavery, and the mill owners were forced to back down.

Put simply, the Emancipation Proclamation was a public commitment by the United States to end slavery. It killed the Fugitive Slave Laws and outlawed the return of escaped slaves to the South. It was a manifestation of the slave revolt, with Northern support, the South had always feared.

Of course, enforcement depended in large part on Union advances through the Confederate states — which brings us to Juneteenth.

June 19, 1865

Texas was the westernmost part of the Confederacy, having been stolen from Mexico just 20 years before. Its geographic isolation largely shielded it from the battles of the Civil War, and over the course of the war Texas filled with slaveholders who moved to escape the fighting across the Deep South. They brought their human property with them — some to work on newly acquired or established farms, but others to be domestic servants in cities such as Houston and Galveston. There were about 250,000 people in enslavement in Texas by 1865.

It took many weeks for news of the April 9, 1865 surrender by Robert E. Lee to reach Texas, and even longer — until June 2 — for the Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi to surrender. On June 18, 2,000 U.S. troops arrived at Galveston Island to occupy Texas for the federal government, under the command of Union Army General Gordon Granger. The next day, he stood on the balcony of the Ashton Villa and read aloud General Order No. 3:

The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.

This was the first news of the Emancipation Proclamation that those enslaved in Galveston had heard. Likely, few if any Texas slaves had heard that they had been officially freed more than two years earlier. A celebration broke out, and the next year, in 1866, the freedmen of Texas held on June 19 what became an annual celebration — Jubilee Day. These early celebrations became political rallies centered on registering newly freed slaves as voters. They helped spark the advances of the Reconstruction Era.

The Civil War had not, obviously, destroyed racism. White Texans, for instance, did everything they could to keep these June 19 celebrations from happening. Landowners would interrupt with demands that their laborers return to work. Cities and towns would bar Black people from using public parks, for instance, which were segregated. So, freed slaves across Texas began to pool their resources and purchase land where they could celebrate Juneteenth. Emancipation Park, 10 acres of land in Houston purchased in 1872 by a group of Black ministers and business owners, is one such location still in use today. It was established expressly for the city’s annual Juneteenth celebration.

Black people taking control of a part of their lives that the racists could not take from them — including just celebrating Juneteenth — so upset the white power structure that they created whatever obstacles they could devise. Eventually, between 1890 and 1908, every one of the former Confederate states, Texas included, passed new laws or revised their constitutions to disenfranchise Black voters, exclude them from public facilities, and enshrine the racist Jim Crow system as a new form of the old plantation.

Since then, Juneteenth has been associated with many of the struggles of Black people against racist and economic oppression. And it has taken up broader social issues as well. In 1968, for instance, the Poor People’s Campaign — organized by Martin Luther King, Jr. and then carried out under the leadership of Ralph Abernathy after King’s assassination, raised demands for economic and human rights for all poor Americans. As part of that campaign, Juneteenth was designated Solidarity Day, and 100,000 people — including many whites — marched in Washington. That day, Coretta Scott King spoke out against the Vietnam War.

Today, with the urgency of the fight against racism as strong as ever, Juneteenth stands as a reminder of the emancipation of slaves and the destruction of the South’s backward socioeconomic system. It is also a reminder of how much more work there is to do. While U.S. military bases are named for Confederate officers and statues to “heroes of the Confederacy” dot the Southern landscape, efforts to make Juneteenth a national holiday in the United States have been thwarted every time. 

Racism Cannot Be Eradicated without Eradicating Capitalism

This year, Juneteenth comes just as the fight against racism in the United States and around the world has taken a new turn. The murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis cops has sparked an uprising against the structural racism that was begun in 1619, when the first Africans were brought as slaves to Virginia. This structural racism was not resolved with the Civil War.

For weeks, in the midst of a global pandemic, the streets of cities across the country have been filled with people of all races, ages, genders, and socioeconomic statuses, demanding change. These protests, by calling the police as an institution into question, are questioning a key component of capitalism  — since the police are the armed force of the capitalist state and serve to uphold capitalist property relations.

Capitalism is inherently racist. In the United States, structural racism is the direct legacy of slavery. Once slaves were freed, the Southerners who were no longer able to enslave people legally, as well as the Northern industrial capitalists, began a systematic recreation of Black oppression to guarantee their profits throughout the United States. Black people became the bottom rung of a growing working class. They were unable to unionize, paid the lowest wages, and kept out of key jobs. Attempts at Black capitalism were systematically crushed, like the Tulsa white supremacist uprising that burned Black small businesses.

After the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted in 1865, formally abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude in the entire United States (and thus going further than the Emancipation Proclamation), Black Codes, state-sanctioned white supremacist violence, and the growth of the Ku Klux Klan all began. Black people were subjected to involuntary labor throughout the South as states and their cops refused to enforce statutes meant to prevent such circumstances. And then there are prisons.

The United States incarcerates more people than any other country, and more than one-third of the prison population is Black people — who are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of whites. Capitalism uses this imprisoned population as slave labor, doing all sorts of work at pennies on the dollar or for no pay at all to feed the capitalist profit-making machine.

Racism is a tool the capitalists wield with great skill; they enforce it with laws and the police. As long as capitalism exists, the capitalists will seek to elevate some people and denigrate others, sowing divisions to deflect attention away from a common enemy.

Thus, the fight to eradicate capitalism is inextricably linked with the fight against racism, and vice versa: the anti-racist struggle is the struggle for socialism. 

Lenin saw the Civil War as a revolutionary war. In a “Letter to American Workers” in 1918, he wrote words that resonate with as much relevance today as they did less than a year after the Russian Revolution. He began by celebrating the “revolutionary tradition” of the American proletariat, and pointed to “the immense, world-historic, progressive and revolutionary significance of the American Civil War of 1863-65!” And like Marx before him, he explained that the fight against the enslavement of Black people in the United States is linked to the fight against wage slavery.

The representatives of the bourgeoisie understand that for the sake of overthrowing Negro slavery, of overthrowing the rule of the slaveowners, it was worth letting the country go through long years of civil war … But now, when we are confronted with the vastly greater task of overthrowing capitalist wage-slavery, of overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie — now, the representatives and defenders of the bourgeoisie, and also the reformist socialists who have been frightened by the bourgeoisie and are shunning the revolution, cannot and do not want to understand that civil war is necessary and legitimate.

The American workers will not follow the bourgeoisie. They will be with us, for civil war against the bourgeoisie. The whole history of the world and of the American labor movement strengthens my conviction that this is so. 

We can honor Juneteenth in 2020 by taking deliberate steps to liberate humanity from capitalism and the institutional racism that feeds its profits.

Latina Feminism: National and Transnational Perspectives

By Cherise Charleswell

Women's studies and the early waves of feminism were initially dominated by the experiences of white middle-class women, thus leaving Latinas, like other women of color, feeling excluded or not fully represented. Outside of women's studies, ethnic studies also left Latinas feeling the same, in that they focused on issues of racial and ethnic oppression and cultural nationalism, while ignoring the critical issues of sexism and heterosexism. Women and women's issues were only seen as "White," thus denying Latinas and other women of color their full identity. Eventually, Latina women joined other women of color in the introduction of gender issues into ethnic studies and critical race issues in women's studies. Their actions were taking a direct stance against not only the exclusionary practices of white middle-class feminism, but also against those within other social movements. These women helped to ensure that civil rights struggles transcended the US borders, and a number of Latina women have taken on leadership roles in the struggle for human rights. Thus, Latina Feminism, just like the Latino identity, is complex, and is oftentimes transnational in nature. For example, being a Latina means that one has a cultural identity and ethnicity, shared by those from or with origins in Latin America. Latinas can be of any racial group, or more likely a mix of various racial groups.

Origins of Latina Feminism

Latina Feminism in the United States really began to take shape following the Civil Rights and Black Nationalist movements, which saw all oppressed people - Gay, women, other ethnic groups - coming forward and using solidarity to spark social changes during the middle of the 20th century. Although Latina women took leadership roles in the other movements, their contributions have for the most part gone unnoticed or ignored. When scholars and community leaders speak about the legacy of these groups, they continue to excluded Latina women; and even well known iconic images do not include them.

Xicana (Chicana) Feminism

Chicana feminist thought and action really began to take shape during the late 1960s, with an increase in organizing during the 1970s. Chicana feminisms itself was an outgrowth or response to the male-dominated Chicano movements, which demanded access to education, as well as social, political, and economic opportunities and justice for Latino people; and took place primarily in the American South West. Like other women of color, Chicanas realized that discussions of women's issues, such as birth control, were being rejected, ignored, or side-lined; while mainstream White middle class feminism was also unwilling to speak out about the unique oppressions that Chicana women faced; particularly workplace exploitation or discrimination

The Women of the Young Lords

The Young Lords was a mostly Puerto Rican (African Americans and other Latinos were members) organization that was formed in the late 1960s by individuals who were primarily under the age of 20. What was so groundbreaking about this group of young people is that they redefined what is was to be Puerto Rican, openly exclaiming their pride in being Boricuans, not "Spanish", but Afro-Taino; and while fighting for basic human rights - clothing, shelter, food, access to healthcare and justice - they openly challenged machismo, sexism, and patriarchy. Women, such as Connie Cruz, Luisa Capteillo, Denise Oliver, and Bianca Canales, quickly emerged as leaders in the Young Lords. Their Ten-Point Health Program was ahead of its time, and it was clear that they understood early on that factors in one's environment (today referred to as social determinants of health by public health specialist) were important to health and wellbeing. Their Ten-Point Health Program was as follows:

We want total self-determination of all health services in East Harlem (El Barrio) through an incorporated Community-Staff Governing Board for Metropolitan Hospital. (Staff is anyone and everyone working at Metropolitan.)

We want immediate replacement of all Lindsay administrators by community and staff appointed people whose practice has demonstrated their commitment to serve our poor community.

We demand immediate end to construction of the new emergency room until the Metropolitan Hospital Community-Staff Governing Board inspects and approves them or authorizes new plans.

We want employment for our people. All jobs filled in El Barrio must be filled by residents first, using on-the-job training and other educational opportunities as bases for service and promotion.

We want free publicly supported health care for treatment and prevention. We want an end to all fees.

We want total decentralization--block health officers responsible to the community-staff board should be instituted.

We want "door-to-door" preventive health services emphasizing environment and sanitation control, nutrition, drug addiction, maternal and child care, and senior citizen's services.

We want education programs for all the people to expose health problems--sanitation, rats, poor housing, malnutrition, police brutality, pollution, and other forms of oppression.

We want total control by the Metropolitan hospital community-staff governing board of the budge allocations, medical policy along the above points, hiring, firing, and salaries of employees, construction and health code enforcement.

Any community, union, or workers organization must support all the points of this program and work and fight for that or be shown as what they are---enemies of the poor people of East Harlem.

#5 essentially calls for universal healthcare.

#7 focuses on prevention on disease and is forward-thinking in looking at addiction as not a criminal activity, but a disease.

#8 describes the need for programs to address the social determinants of health.

Unfortunately, despite their seemingly Progressive attitudes, the Young Lords was still governed by an all-male central committee and its initial 13-point platform advocated for "revolutionary machismo." The women members turned on the pressure and began to directly address this sexism, which resulted in the "machismo" line being dropped, and a new point was added to the program, stating, "We want equality for women. Down with machismo and male chauvinism"; and more importantly, attention and protest was turned to the issue of sterilization. In short, during the 1960s, Puerto Rican women were used as guinea pigs for the development of the birth control pill and later birth control and sterilization were used in some sort of twisted eugenics campaign as a tool of social policy and as a form of directed population control. Over a third of Puerto Rican women of child-bearing age were sterilized. The Young Lord's fight against this abusive practice inspired Ana Maria Garcia's 1982 documentary, La Operacion. The Young Lord's Women's Caucus was progressive and transformative in other ways: defending a woman's right to abortion and childcare, and establishing a women's union with a publication called La Luchadora; and their efforts helped to ensure that half of the content of the Young Lords' newspaper, Pa'lante, focused on women's issues.

Pioneering Latina Feminists in the US

Although "feminist" is being used to describe these women, we must keep in mind that many of them may have not considered or referred to themselves as feminists. Their actions - advocating for women's equality and challenging patriarchy and systems of oppression - indeed made them feminists.

Nina Otero-Warren was a Chicana educator, politician, suffragist, and first wave feminist. She worked for women's suffrage in New Mexico and, in 1918, became superintendent of public schools in Santa Fe County. Later, in 1923, she became Inspector of Indian Schools in Santa Fe County, where she was able to improve the education of indigenous populations.

Jovita Idar was a pioneering Chicana activist and feminist. As early as 1910 she was writing articles for her father's newspaper, covering stories on discrimination, lynching, and other violence committed by Texas Rangers - all issues that, unfortunately, remain relevant today as we continue to witness the same type of oppression. La Ligua Femenil Mexicanista (The League of Mexican Women), which she formed in 1911, is now recognized as the first attempt in Mexican-American history to organize a feminist social movement. These women formed free schools for Mexican children and provided necessities for the poor.

Maria Rebecca Latigo de Hernandez was not a self-described feminist; however, she was a pioneering Xicana activist, working for the improvement of civic, educational, and economic opportunities for Mexican-Americans. In 1929, she co-founded the Orden Caballeros of America, a civic and civil organization.

Sylvia Rivera was a bisexual trans Latina activist and feminist who advocated for the inclusion of queer and transgender people who were left out of the gay-rights movement. She co-founded the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (S.T.A.R.) in 1970.

Feminist scholar Gloria Anzaldua self-describes as a "Chicana/Tejana/lesbian/dyke/feminist/writer/poet/cultural theorist." Her writing focused on providing representations of women of color. Her 1987 book "Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza," her most famous work, focuses on overlapping issues of gender, race, sexual orientation, and class (factors which feminist scholar Kimberlee Crenshaw later referred to as intersections when speaking on the theory of intersectionality). Other notable works by Anzaldua include "This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color" (co-authored with Cherrie Moraga) and "Making Face Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Feminists of Color."

Although Cesar Chavez became the face of the United Farm Workers, has a national holiday in his honor, and was featured in the biographical film Cesar Chavez, much has been known about Dolores Huerta, labor leader, activist, feminist, awardee of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and co-founder of the United Farm Workers. Her lobbying efforts helped to bring about the Immigration Act of 1985. Her other political achievements include:

In 1961, she succeeded in obtaining the citizenship requirements removed from pension and public assistance programs.

In 1962, she was instrumental in the passage of legislation allowing voters the right to vote in Spanish, and the right of individuals to take the drivers license examination in their native language;

In 1963, she helped secure Aid for Dependent Families ("AFDC") for the unemployed and underemployed, disability insurance for farm workers in the State of California, and unemployment benefits for farm workers.

She continues her activism work as an active board member of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Chicana second-wave feminist, Cherrie Moraga, began discussing "interlocking" oppressions early on in her activist, academic, and artistic career during the 1970s. She co-authored "This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color" with Gloria Anzaldua in 1981, and was a founding member of La Red Xicana Indigena, a network of Chicanas organizing nationally and internationally for social change, indigenous rights, and political education.

Pioneering Latina Feminists in Latin America

Leila Gonzalez was an intellectual involved in the Brazilian Black movement and is credited for being responsible for the development and practice of Black Feminism in Brazil (More to come on the topic of racial identity and Black feminism in Latin America and the US). Leila was born in 1935, just 47 years after the Lei Áurea ("Golden Act") abolished slavery in Brazil, and despite being a Black woman, she went on to earn university degrees in history, geography, philosophy, and a PhD in social anthropology.

Petra Herrera was a Soldadera, a female soldier who fought along the men during the Mexican Revolution. She initially disguised her gender and went by the name "Pedro Herrera." After not being credited for valor in battle and promoted to a General, Petra left Pancho Villa's forces and formed her own all-woman brigade.

In 1946, Felisa Rincon de Gautier was elected mayor of San Juan Puerto Rico, becoming not only the first woman to be elected mayor of San Juan, but of any mayor capital city in the Americas. She held this position from 1948 - 1968. She was an active participant in Puerto Rico's women's suffrage movement (won in 1932) and her efforts on child care programs inspired the United States' Head Start program.

Puerto Rican Nationalist, Blanca Canales, has been conveniently erased from history books, and is not greatly discussed in women's studies courses. She helped organize the Daughters of Freedom, the women's branch of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, and is one of the few women in history to have led a revolt against the United States, which was known as the Jayuya Uprising, taking place in 1950. The US government declared martial law to put down the uprising, sentencing the activists to life imprisonment and dismissing their protests as nothing more than an "incident between Puerto Ricans."

Afro-Puerto Rican poet, feminist and activist, Julia de Burgos, used her writings to openly contest the prevailing notion that womanhood and motherhood are synonymous. She courageously began challenging these notions in the 1930s.

Celia Sanchez was the woman at the heart of the Cuban Revolution, and although she was rumored to be the main decision-maker, more is known about her male counterparts Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. She was the founder of the 26th of July Movement and leader of combat squads throughout the Revolution.

Frida Kahlo was a Mexican artist born around the time of the Mexican Revolution. She is best known for her self-portraits filled with pain and passion, which mirrored her own life. She survived polio, a horrific and near-fatal bus accident, an amputation, multiple miscarriages, as well as rampant infidelity. Her work represents a celebration of indigenous traditions, as well as an uncompromising depiction of the female experience and form, the dichotomies, the personal and political, love and loss, physical and emotional pain.

Intersectionality and the Latina in the United States

For the most part, the Latina in the United States is still viewed as "The Other," a racial minority outside of the dominant White society (despite the growing Latino population), and at times as a stereotypical caricature, whether it is the Domestic or the Spicy oversexed Spanish Fly, whose presence is primarily for the pleasure and entertainment of men ( Sophia Vergara's public persona and willingness to be literally put on display during the 2014 Emmy Ward s best exemplifies this caricature). This status as "The Other" has historically left Latinas having to cope with not only gender oppression, but gender and discrimination based on their ethnicity. These are the intersections that impact their lives. Further, one has to understand how these varying intersections drive Latinas to feminism in different ways than their white counterparts. For example, reproductive justice for Latinas, expands beyond the need to control reproduction and ensure that there are no unwanted pregnancies, but includes the need to safeguard the right of women of color to have children.

In a 2013 Ms Magazine interview, Latina feminist blogger, Sara lnes Calderon, explained why feminism or women's issues often go undiscussed or are not viewed as urgent matters to Latinas:

"I find mainstream feminism to often be lacking in substance for myself. I can't relate to it, perhaps because to me feminism is often wrapped up with white privilege. I'm not sure why there aren't more Latinas discussing feminism online. I think one major reason is that, since Latinos are historically not the dominant class and are often immigrants, there are other, more important things that occupy their time. I know that's true for myself; I spend much more time talking about politics and structural issues in my blogging than just pure Latina feminism because I feel like, in the larger sense, it's more important."

Of course, one has to ask, why can't Latina women actively and simultaneously advocate for equality, whether it is racial, gender, or based on sexual orientation? The problem with saying that women's issues are not as important, or can wait, is that they will need to be given an opportunity to be addressed; and thus impeding any form of progress.

On Invisibility: Afro-Latinas in the US

The group often excluded from discussions about the Latina experience in North America are Afro Latinos, whose complex identities, renders them invisible. These women include actresses Rosie Perez, Rosario Dawson, Zoe Saldana, and Gina Torres. While also coping with gender inequality, Afro-Latinas also face discrimination (and racism) from other Latinos, the dominant white society, as well as African-Americans (who are often adamant that Afro-Latinos put their racial identity before their cultural or ethnic). Due to these varying degrees of invisibility and discrimination, alluding to intersectionality is not enough; instead, the experiences of Afro-Latinas can be viewed as a complex spider web.

"The Other": The Indigenous & Afro Latinas in Latin America

"I know that when I was working at the Spanish language television station, there was no one of color on television. And I knew this before, so it wasn't like I got there and I was like 'Whoa, there's nobody on TV.' You just realize that you know, when I go travel, and I go to Cuba, and I go to Puerto Rico, and I go to Peru. You go to these places and you see people who are brown, of indigenous descent. But then you look at the television and you go, 'How come what I see is not what I saw when I visited these places?'"

Kim Haas, founder of the Los Afro-Latinos, shared these sentiments during her interview for Feministing. Her statement speaks to the fact that while Latinos in North America are seen as a monolithic group, indigenous women and those of African descent in Latin America are explicitly seen as "The Other," and are marginalized. While Latinas in the Chicana movement and other Latino social movements in North America advocate for inclusion, fair representation, and civil and human rights, these marginalized groups - indigenous and Afro Latino - in Latin America have historically and continue to have to do the same. When it comes to the media, they remain invisible for the most part, and in comparison to their mestizo or "White" Latino counterparts, these marginalized groups disproportionately have higher rates of poverty and disease. Thus, indigenous and Afro Latina feminists in Latin America have to cope with these deeply rooted intersections - discrimination, racial prejudice, marginalization, poverty, and gender inequality. It is this ironic reality that marks the difference between Latina Feminism in North America and Feminism in Latin America. A mere crossing of the United States border automatically lumps these groups, the marginalized indigenous and Afro-Latino women, with the mestizo/"White" Latinas who represent the dominant society, in the same way that Middle Class, White women in North America were accused of harboring privilege in that they were members of the dominant society.

Acknowledging and addressing this reality has proven to be difficult in Latin America. During the 20th century, Latin American nations were moving towards Democratic forms of governance. By the 1980s, many spaces for debate and political analysis began to open up for different voices from the Latin American civil society; however, these organizations were still not addressing the issue of racism. Thus, during the 5th Latin America and Caribbean Feminist Encuentero taking place in San Bernardo Argentina, different Black women from throughout the region met for the first time and discussed the reality of Black women's lives and the need for their own spaces and having their own voice in Latin America. This initial meeting led to the 1st Latin American and Caribbean Black women's Encuentro in 1992, which took place in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Thus, Afro-Latin American feminism was built on the common experiences of Afro-Latinas who collectively experience gender and racial oppression.

Indigenous women, from various tribes in Latin America (Mayan, Quechuas, Quiche, etc.) have given rise to an indigenous feminism, which really began to take root in the 1990s. The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) emerged in 1994, serving as a catalyst for indigenous women's organization in Mexico, and an example of indigenous feminism for the rest of Latin America. The Zapatista women created what was called the Women's Revolutionary Law, and made it public on January 1, 1994. The 10 point law called for the following rights for indigenous women: the right to political participation and to hold leadership posts within the political system, to a life free of sexual and domestic violence, to decide how many children they want to have, to a fair wage, to choose a spouse, to an education, and to quality health services. In looking at this law and the declaration of women of the Young Lords (previously discussed), it is clear that Latina women in Latin America and in North America - and of varying racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds - have been advocating for essentially the same rights. These issues - reproductive health, having to counteract patriarchy, having full representation, and so on, forms the basis of the commonality as feminists.

Indigenous feminists advocate not only for increased political, cultural, and civil rights, but also for a more equal society within their respective tribes. The following provides an overview of how indigenous feminism differs from the mainstream framework of feminism:

"Indigenous feminism differs from the western idea of the movement; indigenous feminist groups consider equality not just as a gender issue but also as an issue of equality between the human race and nature. Whilst the indigenous feminist groups are fighting their own battles regarding their ethnicity, class and gender, and the perceived exclusion they have experienced as both women and indigenous people, they also work within and for their own groups' overall struggles against issues such as climate change and deforestation." (Castillo, 2010)

Ultimately, ethnicity, class, and gender identity have shaped the struggle of indigenous women in Latin America, and they have opted to assert themselves into the broader struggles of their communities (against multinational organizations and the destruction of the environment and their homelands, exploitation by Latina American governments, as well as violence that accompanies the trafficking of narcotics), all while creating specific spaces to reflect on and speak out against their experiences with sexism and exclusion within their own societies.

Mobilization & Organizing

Latin-American and Latina/Chicano feminism organization continues to evolve, as an increasing number of Latinas in Latin America and North America begin to define their own forms of feminism, which are distinctive and complex. Whether it is considering the Afro-Latina in North America, whose ethnic identity is often dismissed, or the Afro-Latina in Latin America who is faced with great racial discrimination despite their ethnic identity as a Latino, or the mestiza or "White" Latina in Latin America who holds a position of privilege in the dominant society, or the mestiza/"White" Latina in North America who is viewed as "The Other" and faces the same types of prejudice and discrimination. Peasant, poor, working-class, or professional Latina women, whether in the West or Latin America, often have a myriad of concerns, those dealing with survival (escaping violence and having ready access to shelter, food, and potable water). They strive for increased political participation, representation, and socioeconomic equality, as well as safeguarding reproductive justice health and rights (including access to contraception and safe abortions, and access to education.

These transnational Latina feminisms involve different methods of women's organization and mobilization. In the 21st century, these efforts highly rely on digital media, which is often touted as the 4th Wave of Feminism. This form of mobilization is carried out through blogs (L atina Feminista, Womanisms, Los Afro Latinos ), journals (Chicana/Latina Studies, Latin American Perspectives), and think tanks, social media group pages, electronic newsletters, discussion boards, and websites. However, grassroots efforts of organizing are still used, particularly in areas where women have greater economic uncertainty and may not readily have access to digital media. There are, of course, the professional conferences, symposiums, and political advocacy which bring together Latina women who engage in discussions that center on how much progress has been made towards gender equality and how much more work has to be done. They call attention to, draft needed policies, and engage legislators.

Here are various Latina Feminist Mobilization Efforts & Organizations:

Chicana por mi Raza : is an online archive project that focuses on recapturing and highlighting the contribution of Mexican American, Chicana, and Hispanic women to vibrant social, political, and economic justice movements in the United States; looking at the development of Chicana feminist thought and action from 1960 to 1990. The website will serve as a digital archive, and is set to launch later this year. Items that will be available in the archive includes: newspapers, reports, leaflets, out-of-print books, correspondence, and oral histories.

Mundo Afro Salto : A regional Black culture group, decided to profile women of African descent in Salto Uruguay, in recognition of the 2011 United Nations International Year for People of African Descent. This was done via video, where these women proclaim not only their black heritage, but touch on gender issues, declaring that house work is not only woman's work.

The Roundtable of Latina Feminism : Is a collective grounding hosted by John Carroll University, which provides a dedicated space to discuss all issues related to Latina and Latin American feminisms. These gatherings are held annually, and they represent a break from academic conferences, which founder Mariana Ortega believed prioritized competitive and agnostic discussions. Instead, the roundtable provides an example of an alternative enuentros, and centers on the idea of transnational coalition building.

Colectivo Feminista Sexualidade Saude (CFSS ): is a feminist health action group based in Brazil that provides health education and training for women and professionals. They encourage self-help and also have a focus on women's mental health, violence against women, and child mortality.

CEFEMINIA : is a non-profit women's organization founded in 1975 in Costa Rica, which focuses in five key areas: violence against women, women's health, women and the legal system, as well as housing and environmental justice. The organization promotes self-help and community-based efforts, including providing needed housing.

California Latinas for Reproductive Justice : is a state-wide organization that focuses on building Latinas' power and cultivating leadership through community education, policy advocacy, and community-informed research, in order to achieve reproductive justice.

Black Women of Brazil : is a website dedicated to Brazilian women of African descent, which features news, essays, reports and interviews spanning an array of topics including race, racism, hair, sexism, sexual objectification and exploitation, affirmative action, socioeconomic inequity, police brutality, etc. intended to give a more complete view of the experiences of black women in particular, and black people in general in Brazil with a goal of provoking discussion through the lens of race.

Conclusion

Despite their distinctive characteristics, Latina Feminisms are quite similar, and this may be due to the transnational interconnections and bidirectional contacts between North America and the countries of Latin America. The greatest similarities is that Latina feminisms all differ from the Western middle-class white construct, and remain deeply rooted in social movements that impact their communities. For this reason, much of Latina Feminist organizing is non-academic, where Latinas in women's movements often do not accept the label feminist. These women are self-taught, and their actions are not shaped by academic theory, but lived experiences with sexism, racism, marginalization, and inequality; which have contributed to their awakening and activism.

Latina feminists have collectively criticized white-dominated Western feminism for being too homogenous, particularly in the blogosphere, where Latina feminist issues are not believed to be discussed in a satisfactory manner on mainstream feminist blogs. However, Latina feminist blogs, websites, publications, and organizations must take their own advice and grow to be more inclusive; and create spaces for the voices of marginalized indigenous and Afro-Latina women.

Ultimately, Latina feminisms advocate for the recognition of the full humanity of women and girls, and the removal of sexism, racism, ableism, classism, and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

References

Castillo, R. A. (2010). The Emergence of Indigenous Feminism in Latin America. Chicago Journals, Vol. 35,(No. 3), 539-545.