This paper argues that studies of female exploitation frequently pay too little attention to the broader social context; particularly alienation and crises in the development of late capitalism. This criticism applies with equal force to the domestic labor/housework studies and labor process studies and labor process studies where male domination is often advanced as the primary explanatory variable in accounting for female oppression. Even where labor process researchers have emphasized mediating affects on partiarchial influences (technology and control processes for instance; c.f. Milkman, Politics and Society, pp. 159–203, 1983), we argue that the broader context of alienated capitalist social relations is frequently understated. Female subordination under capitalism is traced to two primary sources in this study: First, that part of the labor process where the existence of female labor facilitates surplus value appropriation by playing the part of an “industrial reserve army” (sometimes “latent”, at other times “floating”). Second, in times of overproduction and underconsumption, capital has invented a consumerist ideology about women to help resolve its crisis of realizing surplus value. Only by seeing these different instances of female oppression as part of a larger, mutually reinforcing configuration of “instances” — emanating from capitalist social relations — are we likely to begin to adequately comprehend the resilience of social ideology concerning women and develop effective political and social counter-strategies. In this research, the above considerations are explored using evidence from a longitudinal study of General Motors where the annual reports are used to monitor the evolution of managerial ideology vis-a-vis women over some sixty years. We see in this study how the manner of women's exploitation changes with changes in the crises facing capitalism. The implications of the study are severalfold: Firwt, we see how a socially “unreflective” view of “management” and “management control systems” may lead to practices that are oppressive and exploitative. Second, we find “the labor process” to be an important but insufficient conceptual terrain for understanding women's oppression; instead we propose that the starting point of any analysis should be capitalist alienation. Third, this work has implications for the various controversies about class essentialism and the primacy of class. (Wright, New Left Review, pp. 11–36, 1983; Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, 1979; Miliband, New Left Review, pp. 57–68, 1983; Tinker, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, pp. 1–20, 1984). as well as the relation between male domination and class oppression (Fox-Genovese, New Left Review, pp. 5–29, 1982, Goldelier, New Left Review, pp. 3–17, 1981) in that it examines the interplay between class and other forms of domination. Lastly, we see how annual reports may contribute to a general “world view” that aids social appropriation and domination.