In “The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution”, Shulamith Firestone presents us with a deeper view into the root of the oppression of women as a sex class.

Firestone recognizes that at a biological level women have been burdened with aspects that limit their bodily freedom in comparison with that of their male counterparts, she continues then to present this simple biological difference as the element upon which further patriarchal cultural influences will build their justification for the oppression of women as not only the ‘morally right’ thing to do but also as the natural order of things.

Throughout the chapters of this works, Firestone constructs a mosaic of sorts that allows us to see the grand picture, to trace back the sources of not only the oppression of women but also that of children, and how these two different classes of people have been bundled together for the benefit of men.

There are some chapters dedicated to the dissection of the nuclear family and its rather recent development within the historical panorama, demonstrating not only the consequences it has had upon the human experience from early childhood to eventual adulthood but also how these stages of life are modified depending on the social class of the individual in discussion.

Firestone exposes that the supposed ‘sexual revolution’ that was perceived as a stepping stone towards the liberation of women was nothing but a hoax that permitted men to facilitate their navigation of Love and Romance, elements that Firestone herself affirms that possess fluctuating essences and meanings depending on the individual’s sex and consequent assigned gender and social rolls.

During the final chapters Shulamith brings forth the old and ongoing debate of the Two Cultures, bringing therefore C.P Snow into our current discussion. She assigns what she titles the ‘Technological Mode’ (a mode of analysis and building upon the world mainly deterministic, mechanistic and with an empirical basis) to the Male and the ‘Aesthetic Mode’ (a mode of analysis and contemplation that transcends the material reality into an affirmation of capacity rather than possibility) to the Female. She believes that with the ‘marriage’ of these two modes of thought one will be able to cancel each other out and obtain a more ‘androgynous’ form of perceiving, altering and experiencing the world.

Shulamith ends her work reminding the reader that necessities such as birth control (and abortion) are crucial elements for the liberation of women from what one can consider biological shackles, and presents us with what she calls a ‘rejection of biology’ in order to surpass and annihilate the oppression that is built upon its premises.

Though I saw myself agreeing with many of the points brought forth by Forestone I also saw myself perceiving some of them as rather outdated and not applicable to our current state of affairs, which is quite reasonable when you take into account that Shulamith was writing this in the 70s, being quite the revolutionary for her time.