Montague and Capulet. It was their first date. He said to her that feminism was the upshot of the importation of categories pertaining class conflict into the analysis of family relations. No, no she answered, it is the recognition that economic forces determine family relations; the liberation of the family, the proletariat, and women, is inextricably interwoven. But I do not see, he said, how the economic rights of the woman can be seperated off from the rights of the man in the context of a family: the family is a unit, male and female, and represent one political and economic interest, proletarian or otherwise. As soon, he continued, it is conceived that the man and the woman can have seperate political and economic interests, the family is split. On the contrary, she answered: so long as women do not have an equal political and economic status to the man, are the relations of the family characterised by struggle – unless a marriage union consists in a passive subordination of woman to man. Is that what you think? Well, he said, the question is twofold: political representation and economic efficiency. Through whom should the representation, of the one economic interest, be elected? And who is best placed to care for children, that is to take the interior role in the family, and who the exterior? It is clear then, where the power lies, is it not? No, it isn’t. Yes, it is.