Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How feminism became capitalism's handmaiden

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How feminism became capitalism's handmaiden

    So, I finally saw The Red Pill movie.

    I have quite a bit to say about it, and I may write up a review if I get time, but one comment stood out to me: Erin Pizzey noted that the Feminist boogie-man changed from capitalism to "patriarchy" about 50 years ago.

    Here's some thoughts on the matter from within feminism:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...den-neoliberal

    How feminism became capitalism's handmaiden - and how to reclaim it

    Nancy Fraser

    A movement that started out as a critique of capitalist exploitation ended up contributing key ideas to its latest neoliberal phase



    As a feminist, I've always assumed that by fighting to emancipate women I was building a better world – more egalitarian, just and free. But lately I've begun to worry that ideals pioneered by feminists are serving quite different ends. I worry, specifically, that our critique of sexism is now supplying the justification for new forms of inequality and exploitation.

    In a cruel twist of fate, I fear that the movement for women's liberation has become entangled in a dangerous liaison with neoliberal efforts to build a free-market society. That would explain how it came to pass that feminist ideas that once formed part of a radical worldview are increasingly expressed in individualist terms. Where feminists once criticised a society that promoted careerism, they now advise women to "lean in". A movement that once prioritised social solidarity now celebrates female entrepreneurs. A perspective that once valorised "care" and interdependence now encourages individual advancement and meritocracy.

    What lies behind this shift is a sea-change in the character of capitalism. The state-managed capitalism of the postwar era has given way to a new form of capitalism – "disorganised", globalising, neoliberal. Second-wave feminism emerged as a critique of the first but has become the handmaiden of the second.

    With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that the movement for women's liberation pointed simultaneously to two different possible futures. In a first scenario, it prefigured a world in which gender emancipation went hand in hand with participatory democracy and social solidarity; in a second, it promised a new form of liberalism, able to grant women as well as men the goods of individual autonomy, increased choice, and meritocratic advancement. Second-wave feminism was in this sense ambivalent. Compatible with either of two different visions of society, it was susceptible to two different historical elaborations.

    As I see it, feminism's ambivalence has been resolved in recent years in favour of the second, liberal-individualist scenario – but not because we were passive victims of neoliberal seductions. On the contrary, we ourselves contributed three important ideas to this development.

    One contribution was our critique of the "family wage": the ideal of a male breadwinner-female homemaker family that was central to state-organised capitalism. Feminist criticism of that ideal now serves to legitimate "flexible capitalism". After all, this form of capitalism relies heavily on women's waged labour, especially low-waged work in service and manufacturing, performed not only by young single women but also by married women and women with children; not by only racialised women, but by women of virtually all nationalities and ethnicities. As women have poured into labour markets around the globe, state-organised capitalism's ideal of the family wage is being replaced by the newer, more modern norm – apparently sanctioned by feminism – of the two-earner family.

    Never mind that the reality that underlies the new ideal is depressed wage levels, decreased job security, declining living standards, a steep rise in the number of hours worked for wages per household, exacerbation of the double shift – now often a triple or quadruple shift – and a rise in poverty, increasingly concentrated in female-headed households. Neoliberalism turns a sow's ear into a silk purse by elaborating a narrative of female empowerment. Invoking the feminist critique of the family wage to justify exploitation, it harnesses the dream of women's emancipation to the engine of capital accumulation.

    Feminism has also made a second contribution to the neoliberal ethos. In the era of state-organised capitalism, we rightly criticised a constricted political vision that was so intently focused on class inequality that it could not see such "non-economic" injustices as domestic violence, sexual assault and reproductive oppression. Rejecting "economism" and politicising "the personal", feminists broadened the political agenda to challenge status hierarchies premised on cultural constructions of gender difference. The result should have been to expand the struggle for justice to encompass both culture and economics. But the actual result was a one-sided focus on "gender identity" at the expense of bread and butter issues. Worse still, the feminist turn to identity politics dovetailed all too neatly with a rising neoliberalism that wanted nothing more than to repress all memory of social equality. In effect, we absolutised the critique of cultural sexism at precisely the moment when circumstances required redoubled attention to the critique of political economy.

    Finally, feminism contributed a third idea to neoliberalism: the critique of welfare-state paternalism. Undeniably progressive in the era of state-organised capitalism, that critique has since converged with neoliberalism's war on "the nanny state" and its more recent cynical embrace of NGOs. A telling example is "microcredit", the programme of small bank loans to poor women in the global south. Cast as an empowering, bottom-up alternative to the top-down, bureaucratic red tape of state projects, microcredit is touted as the feminist antidote for women's poverty and subjection. What has been missed, however, is a disturbing coincidence: microcredit has burgeoned just as states have abandoned macro-structural efforts to fight poverty, efforts that small-scale lending cannot possibly replace. In this case too, then, a feminist idea has been recuperated by neoliberalism. A perspective aimed originally at democratising state power in order to empower citizens is now used to legitimise marketisation and state retrenchment.

    In all these cases, feminism's ambivalence has been resolved in favour of (neo)liberal individualism. But the other, solidaristic scenario may still be alive. The current crisis affords the chance to pick up its thread once more, reconnecting the dream of women's liberation with the vision of a solidary society. To that end, feminists need to break off our dangerous liaison with neoliberalism and reclaim our three "contributions" for our own ends.

    First, we might break the spurious link between our critique of the family wage and flexible capitalism by militating for a form of life that de-centres waged work and valorises unwaged activities, including – but not only – carework. Second, we might disrupt the passage from our critique of economism to identity politics by integrating the struggle to transform a status order premised on masculinist cultural values with the struggle for economic justice. Finally, we might sever the bogus bond between our critique of bureaucracy and free-market fundamentalism by reclaiming the mantle of participatory democracy as a means of strengthening the public powers needed to constrain capital for the sake of justice.

  • #2
    Feminism is a hate group. Actions speak louder than words. Feminists are hateful people.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.
    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mr_e View Post
      Feminism is a hate group. Actions speak louder than words. Feminists are hateful people.
      Did you watch the movie, E?

      Comment


      • #4
        It's not feminism and capitalism that go hand in hand per se. It's consumerism and feminism. And there's a key difference.

        Men accumulate and compete for capital.

        Women compete for men in possession of capital in order to CONSUME said capital.

        People waaay smarter than the rest of us figured this basic equation out in the 1920s. Then the small matter of global existential conflict got in the way and the best laid plans ended up taking a back seat until the 1950s.

        Men compete over and accumulate capital. Women compete over men in possession of capital and then consume that capital. Where feminism comes in in it's second and third waves revolves around making it increasingly easier for women to extract men's capital directly with the assistance and support of the state.

        That's because once women (unchecked by men and unbound by fiscal responsibility) come into possession of capital they can be reliably trusted to CONSUME it by spending it on crap.

        Women (and younger women specifically ) are for a variety of reasons the easiest group of people to MANUFACTURE NEEDS for. It's Maslow 101. In the majority of the developed world the majority of basic needs are a given. In order to encourage rampant needless consumption you need to find ever increasing and creative ways of giving women control over capital they didn't work to earn and therefore aren't going to spend sparingly.

        In short women can be reliably depended upon to spend money they didn't earn on crap they don't need. Therefore those who product 'crap' that 'no one needs' have a vested interest in supporting feminism.

        Because being the form of gendered-socialism that it is, it very effectively utilizes political power structures to put other people's money in women's hands....in the name of 'equality'.
        "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

        Comment


        • #5
          https://tifwe.org/capitalism-and-fem...ood-for-women/

          Why Capitalism and Feminism Are Both Good for Women

          Capitalism and feminism rightly understood go hand-in-hand in freeing women to pursue their vocations with energy and creativity.

          Dr. Anne Bradley
          May 11, 2016




          Recently, I attended a seminar at George Mason University where Tyler Cowen interviewed Camille Paglia. Paglia always packs a punch. She is a professor of humanities and media studies at The University of the Arts. She is also a self-described libertarian Democrat. This is what makes her so interesting.

          Paglia’s talk ranged from the musical genius of Bob Dylan to the different gender roles involved in raising children. She ended her talk in response to an audience question regarding whether feminism in America has achieved its goals.

          Paglia answered, “Capitalism made women’s emancipation possible.”

          This is both humble and accurate. Paglia is acutely aware there is no way that she could hold a professorial position in media studies at a university without the massive value creation that is unleashed under capitalist systems.
          What Modern Feminism Misses When It Comes to Calling

          I have previously written on my views of modern feminism. If God has created us with gifts and asks us, as stewards, to use every breath that we have and every hour of the day to serve others with our gifts, then we must be free to do that. Aside from Paglia, few modern feminists would have us understand that for women to be free to unleash their creative gifts, we need a free society.

          The goal then is not to elevate women to a status that is always elevated above their male counterparts. That is cronyism disguised as gender equality.

          Women and men are different. We know this because we understand the story of how and why God created us. We are here to serve him and his creation. If we are allowed to use our gifts to serve others and we have the proper economic incentives to do so, we contribute to and benefit from greater human flourishing.

          Paglia rightly claims that to have strong women we need strong men. I couldn’t agree more. Strong women are those that know their calling and work to accomplish it. This requires strong men, not male doormats. She goes so far to say that second-wave feminism requires authoritarianism:

          The problem with too much current feminism, in my opinion, is that even when it strikes progressive poses, it emanates from an entitled, upper-middle-class point of view. It demands the intrusion and protection of paternalistic authority figures to project a hypothetical utopia that will be magically free from offence and hurt.

          Many in the modern feminist movement would degrade men to female lip-servants and destroy anything masculine about them. This runs directly counter to how and why God created us male and female.

          When we begin to unpack the problems of modern feminism, we realize it is incompatible with a free and flourishing society. Authoritarian rules and regulations oriented towards some unrealizable goal of “equality” only serve to make us weak and lessen our abilities to use our gifts in creative ways to serve others.
          Capitalism Makes Pursuing Your Calling Possible

          Capitalism continues to free women in amazing ways. Most importantly it frees our time. We would be remiss to ignore that it was not just legalizing the equal status of women to accept jobs as CEO’s and entrepreneurs which mattered, but it was freeing their time to leave the home to go do those things. Sarah Skwire writes this in her timely essay “Capitalism will Abolish Laundry Day“:

          In the 1920s, the average housewife spent about 11.5 hours per week on laundry and ironing. By 1965, that had dropped to just under 7 hours. In 2014, that average housewife (and her spouse) spent about 20 minutes a day on the task, or just over 1.5 hours per week.

          If you are called to leave the home for hours a day to be a doctor, secretary, or UPS driver, you not only require legal protections to do so, you need time. When laundry takes up 11.5 hours per week, you are in trouble. You either do laundry at night, stringing the clothes in the darkness in your backyard, or you just don’t work as much. Because you can’t.

          Capitalism helps us overcome these problems by giving women opportunities to abandon their washing boards in favor of a washing machine. This allows you to do more regardless of what you are called to do: you can spend more time with children, more time engaged in volunteer work, or more time working in the corporate world.

          Capitalism begets greater human creativity because it frees our time to create, innovate, and explore. Capitalism invites women to be a part of this process. As a result, we achieve even greater societal value creation.

          Capitalism and feminism rightly understood go hand-in-hand. Societies that discourage women from being all they are created to be suffer, as do societies that hinder the creative powers that are unleashed under capitalism. When we do both of these things well, we flourish.

          Dr. Anne Bradley
          Anne Bradley, Ph.D. is Vice President of Economic Initiatives at the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics. Anne received her Ph.D. in Economics from George Mason University. She is a visiting professor at Georgetown University and has previously taught at George Mason University and at Charles University in Prague.
          Hey, looks like maybe we should toss religion into the mix with capitalism and feminism, huh?

          And this piece is, of course, utter crap.
          Last edited by StrongSilentType; 03-18-2017, 01:58 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
            Did you watch the movie, E?

            Yes I did. And I am a proud sponsor of it as well.
            FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
            It's time to call it out for what it is.
            == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


            The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
              So, I finally saw The Red Pill movie.

              I have quite a bit to say about it, and I may write up a review if I get time, but one comment stood out to me: Erin Pizzey noted that the Feminist boogie-man changed from capitalism to "patriarchy" about 50 years ago.

              Here's some thoughts on the matter from within feminism:

              https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...den-neoliberal
              Funny, the left running from the Feminist Reds by placing that taint on Capitalism. I think you need to listen to Eryn Pizzey on the modern history of Feminism.
              ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
              virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

              It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
              AVFM Mission Statement
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                Yes I did. And I am a proud sponsor of it as well.
                Did you see the part where Harry Crouch said that there are good people in the feminist movement?

                I think it's becoming important to distinguish between different factions of feminists, because a lot of them have emotional investment in that word, and they are more likely to support our positions if they do not have to abandon it.

                And, in context, what are you implying about capitalism?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                  Funny, the left running from the Feminist Reds by placing that taint on Capitalism.
                  Um, no, this leftie is running from selfish feminist-capitalists (isn't the fact that their basic attribute is the same a big clue?); I support socialism in the mixed economy, so why would I have any more opposition to "reds" than to capitalists?


                  Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                  I think you need to listen to Eryn Pizzey on the modern history of Feminism.
                  "Feminism's boogie-man used to be capitalism, but then they moved the goalposts and made it patriarchy."

                  -Erin Pizzey

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                    Did you see the part where Harry Crouch said that there are good people in the feminist movement?

                    I think it's becoming important to distinguish between different factions of feminists, because a lot of them have emotional investment in that word, and they are more likely to support our positions if they do not have to abandon it.

                    And, in context, what are you implying about capitalism?


                    I'm sure there were good Nazis too. And Ku Klux Klansmen that didn't hate black people.

                    They are not Feminists, they are mislabeled and/or misguided. If I associate with Naxis and the KKK, people are going to have certain (well-deserved) connotations about me that I would be a fucking fool not to realize. And if I, knowing that, continued to associate with them anyway, I would be richly deserving of anything I got by way of that connotation. People would be right to paint me with the same stripe-- whether I truly was hateful and bigoted or not. Same goes for Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers and all the rest. They know damned well what Feminism is and does. If they are silly enough to continue to call themselves a member of that group and associate with them, then they are being woefully naive (at best) and can't seriously complain when they get tarred and feathered along with all the rest.
                    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                    It's time to call it out for what it is.
                    == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                      Did you see the part where Harry Crouch said that there are good people in the feminist movement?

                      I think it's becoming important to distinguish between different factions of feminists, because a lot of them have emotional investment in that word, and they are more likely to support our positions if they do not have to abandon it.

                      And, in context, what are you implying about capitalism?
                      I'm one of the people who opened my wallet and pulled out wads of cash and gave it to Cassie Jaye right in the very beginning, and I did my level best to drum up support from every quarter I could think of including family and friends-- even from Feminists that I know-- long before Milo came onto the scene. I know some other people here were also active in that manner. I am extremely thankful that Milo did come along, as he really did rescue her project. And she did a very good job. Even though the movie left me feeling sadder than I was before I saw it. But that wasn't because it was bad.
                      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                      It's time to call it out for what it is.
                      == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                        I'm one of the people who opened my wallet and pulled out wads of cash and gave it to Cassie Jaye right in the very beginning, and I did my level best to drum up support from every quarter I could think of including family and friends-- even from Feminists that I know-- long before Milo came onto the scene. I know some other people here were also active in that manner. I am extremely thankful that Milo did come along, as he really did rescue her project. And she did a very good job. Even though the movie left me feeling sadder than I was before I saw it. But that wasn't because it was bad.
                        Fantastic, and I tend to agree with you about feeling worse after seeing it, but...

                        That wasn't the point; we are going to need allies in the moderate feminist camp.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                          Fantastic, and I tend to agree with you about feeling worse after seeing it, but...

                          That wasn't the point; we are going to need allies in the moderate feminist camp.

                          There is no such thing as a moderate Feminist. It is an oxy-moron. However, if we agree that we are talking about people who have misaligned themselves with the wrong advocacy group, I can agree that we need them as allies.
                          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                          It's time to call it out for what it is.
                          == REJECT FEMINISM. EMBRACE HUMANITY ==


                          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men
                          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                            There is no such thing as a moderate Feminist. It is an oxy-moron. However, if we agree that we are talking about people who have misaligned themselves with the wrong advocacy group, I can agree that we need them as allies.
                            Manichaean thinking is the last thing we need.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mr_e View Post
                              There is no such thing as a moderate Feminist.
                              I basically agree but I would phrase it differently.

                              An extreme feminist is extremely misandrist. A moderate feminist is moderately misandrist.

                              I wouldn't want to ally myself with someone who is misandrist simply because they are less misandrist than their more radical sisters. I want to oppose misandry, not pander to it. The 'moderate' feminists are only moderate in comparison to radical feminists, they are not 'moderate' in any objective sense.
                              We fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that it will triumph. (TS Eliot)
                              http://jptate.jimdo.com/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X