Breaking down the question

The phrase gender-blind is the key. It alleges that classical stratification theory ignored gender as an independent axis of inequality. The command elucidate asks you to explain and evaluate this charge — showing where it holds, where it is contested, and how feminist scholarship has responded. A balanced verdict is expected.

How to approach it

  • Explain what gender-blindness means in stratification theory.
  • Show how classical theories — Marxian and Weberian — subordinated gender to class.
  • Present the feminist critique as the counter-argument.
  • Note responses that integrate gender into stratification analysis.
  • Reach a qualified conclusion rather than a flat yes or no.

Model answer

Classical social stratification theory has been widely criticised as gender-blind — treating class as the primary or sole basis of inequality and rendering women analytically invisible. Karl Marx located stratification in the relations of production, subsuming women's oppression under class exploitation. Max Weber's scheme of class, status and party said little about gender as an independent dimension. Conventional studies even measured a woman's class position by her husband's occupation, erasing her own location.

Feminist sociologists challenged this. Sylvia Walby argued that patriarchy is a distinct structure of inequality, operating through paid work, the household, the state and violence, and not reducible to class. Feminists highlighted the gendered division of labour, unequal property rights and the double burden as stratifying forces in their own right.

Contemporary theory has partly answered the charge. Intersectional approaches now treat gender, class and caste as interlocking hierarchies. Thus classical stratification theory was substantially gender-blind, but the discipline has since moved to integrate gender as a central axis of stratification.

For the various bases of inequality, see dimensions of stratification.

Examiner's perspective

The examiner wants a both-sides evaluation, not a slogan. Strong answers concede the historical gender-blindness of classical theory, substantiate it with Marx and Weber, and then show the feminist correction and intersectional turn. Ending with a nuanced verdict — gender-blind in origin, less so today — demonstrates the balance and critical awareness that top scripts display.