1.) Madame Nadi is the owner of a bar in a small mining town in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She is classified as a Petit-bourgeoisies, they are people who own a business and work there. According to Marxist theory, People in higher power like Nadi and Bourgeoisies’ alienate their workers stripping them of their human rights and are exploited. That’s the definition of those classes. Marxist says all Petit-bourgeoisies and Bourgeoisies are like that. Well, were does Nadi fit in then. Yes she own girls and makes them have sex for money, but they get food, shelter, and protection from the war and the horrors that are out there. They still have many of their human rights. She actually cares about them, but doesn’t show it as much. “Take…show more content… She has to keep a tough appearance. By the end of the play, she gives up an entire diamond to get Sophie an operation. A supposedly cold, human rights stripping boss who uses her workers for her advantage gives the most valuable thing she owns to save a simple ruined girl. “No, listen … I’m talking about Sophie. This will raise enough money for an operation, and whatever she needs to get settled” (Mama pg 60). This doesn’t fit the definition of a Petit-bourgeoisies, she partially fits but in Marxist, it’s all or nothing. Which brings me to the Feminist aspect of this play. At first glance Nadi seems like a hard core feminist, she won’t let any man use her, she has countless men in love with her but she always declines, and she is in charge at her bar. She always tells the men, bullets at the bar, and she won’t take no for an answer. “Monsieur, I must ask you to leave your bullets at the bar, otherwise you don’t come in (MAMA pg 29)”. “And if I choose not to..)” (OSEMBENGA pg 29). “Then you don’t get served. I don’t want any mischief in here. Is that clear?)”(MAMA pg29). But one aspect that makes her not a Feminist is that she does force the girls to have sex with bar