Evaluate the view that gender inequalities exist in society because they serve the needs of capitalism.

The assertion that gender inequalities are a product of capitalist systems and their inherent need for exploitation finds strong support within sociological discourse. This essay will argue that while other factors undoubtedly contribute, the historical and ongoing relationship between capitalism and patriarchal structures forms a key basis for understanding persistent gender disparities.

Marxist perspectives provide a powerful lens through which to analyse this relationship. Engels, for example, argued that the development of private property alongside early capitalism led to the subjugation of women. This, he posited, was to ensure paternity lines and the smooth inheritance of wealth within families. Women's sexuality became controlled, their roles relegated to the domestic sphere, reinforcing their economic dependence on men. This view finds resonance in the work of Coontz and Henderson, who trace the rise of gender inequality directly to the shift towards male control of economic resources with the advent of agrarian societies and later, industrial capitalism.

Marxist-feminist perspectives build upon these foundations, further elucidating the ways in which women's oppression serves capitalist interests. Feeley, for instance, argues that within the family unit, women play a crucial role in transmitting capitalist ideology to future generations. By socializing children into accepting hierarchy and obedience, they reproduce the compliant workforce capitalism requires.

This reproduction of labour power is central to Benston's analysis. She highlights the unpaid domestic labour undertaken by women, arguing that it serves to maintain and replenish the male workforce at no cost to capitalists. Women's domestic work, from childcare to housework, becomes essential yet invisible, allowing for the exploitation of both male and female labour. Ansley develops this idea further, describing women as "takers of shit". She argues that women act as emotional shock absorbers, soaking up the frustrations men experience as a result of alienation and exploitation within the capitalist workplace. This, she argues, prevents the working class from directing their anger towards the true source of their oppression – the capitalist system itself.

Beyond the domestic sphere, Bruegel's concept of women as a "reserve army of labour" further demonstrates how capitalism benefits from gender inequality. Women are readily pulled into the workforce during times of economic boom, only to be pushed back into the domestic sphere when no longer needed, serving to drive down wages and weaken the bargaining power of all workers.

Dual labour market theory offers additional insight into the economic mechanisms that perpetuate gender inequality. Barron and Norris argue that women are disproportionately concentrated within the secondary labour market, characterized by low pay, insecurity, and limited opportunities for advancement. This, they argue, is not accidental. Women's traditional roles, often framed as stemming from biological differences, make them easy targets for exploitation within these sectors. Their perceived suitability for caring or emotional labour further reinforces their concentration in low-wage, devalued roles.

It is important to acknowledge that focusing solely on economic determinism risks neglecting the complex interplay of factors that contribute to gender inequalities. Cultural norms, social structures, and individual agency all play a part. However, the historical and ongoing relationship between capitalist modes of production and the perpetuation of patriarchal structures cannot be ignored. From the control of women's sexuality to their exploitation as a source of cheap and dispensable labour, the evidence strongly suggests that gender inequalities are not merely incidental to capitalism, but rather, serve its interests in multifaceted and enduring ways.