Hey folks!
I've got a question for you tonight. Can you be a feminist and not be anti-capitalism?
I say no. Here's why.
Feminism at its core is concerned with equality, right? Second wave feminism was pretty much only about gender equality, but now we have race/class/sexuality/ability/nationality etc as intersections in feminism as well.
Here's what people know about anti-capitalism (at least what Americans are taught): socialism is bad. Communism is worse. However, from a feminist point of view, we can't be so quick to dismiss anti-capitalist economies. We're worried about equality from an intersectional point of view. And clearly, we do not yet have that equality. (White) women are still payed 77 cents to the (white) male dollar. Women of color are undergoing forced sterilizations and experimental "birth control". Queer people can get fired for being queer. I could go on and on for pages about inequality, but I won't.
The thing is, under capitalism, we're all just stuck. Women's caregiving (and it is still women doing the caregiving) is unpaid labor. The whole society is about money, about getting money and about maintaining wealth. But feminism doesn't just concern itself with middle class white women (sorry, Betty Friedan). Under capitalism, women of color and poor white women are screwed out of money.
Under socialism, women could work while their kids got free (!!) childcare by the state. It wouldn't matter that I didn't have insurance; I could go to the hospital and get treated for free. With capitalism, we only matter if we have money. Poor women who can't afford childcare? Society says "too bad", and doesn't recognize that the reason they can't get jobs is because they have to take care of their kids...and they can't take care of kids because they can't get jobs to afford childcare!
Like third wave (and beyond?) feminism, socialist feminism doesn't just concern itself with (white) women's issues. Other axes of oppression, particularly race and class are also given weight, as it recognizes the ways in which capitalism hurts not only women, but poor people, people of color, and those with disabilities as well. We talk so much about how to involve men in feminism. Capitalism divides men and women. Under capitalism, women can never achieve the status (read: financial) of men. Socialism wants to work with men to end not only gender oppression but all of these other forms of oppression as well.
As a bottom-up movement, it starts by recognizing the power and the need for those at the lowest points on the hierarchy. Let's face it; men are oppressed too (now don't take me out of context. The straight, middle class, white man is NOT oppressed). However, a working class man, or a man of color, or a working class man of color, while privileged in gender, is still oppressed under capitalism. If we believe in equality, how are we supposed to say that we only believe in equality for women? That's my biggest problem with radical feminism. Yes, patriarchy is a problem. Yes, women are oppressed because of patriarchy. But this is not the only form of oppression that works in our society. In order to form coalitions, shouldn't we try to join with as many people as possible?
So back to my original point: why I think you can't be a feminist and be pro-capitalist. To put it bluntly, capitalism embodies all of the male values of competition, wealth, and power. Capitalism LOVES power. It's all about "if I can get more than you, I can buy a nicer car, a bigger house, better clothes and prove that I'm better than you because I make more money". Socialism says "well, it doesn't matter if you're a person of color, a queer person, poor, Deaf, or in a wheelchair, you should get the same privileges as everyone else".
Feminism is no longer solely about women. Radical feminism, while it has its merits, still blames everything on men. Socialism blames corporations, blames the rich for the oppression of everyone except the rich (as of course, they're not oppressed). So to be anti-socialist means you're anti-equality-for-everyone. To be anti-socialist means that you think that if I walk into a hospital, I should be denied free treatment, regardless of who I am, if I am uninsured. To be anti-socialist means that it's okay for workers to be exploited, for the poor to continue to do the work for the rich, but to continue getting poorer as the rich get richer.
I know socialism has its issues; what system doesn't? But let's face it: capitalism is on the brink of a meltdown. It backfired. In socialist countries, there is still free healthcare, free childcare, and women make as much as men for equal work. How can we say that we're against that?
What do you think? Can you be a feminist who is in favor of capitalism?
(I'm sorry for the extremely reductive views of socialism for anyone who is used to the theory. I know I missed most of the big points, but there are always more blog posts...this is my coming-out as a socialist feminist on this blog...I don't think you've seen the end of my economic theory yet...)
5 comments:
I look forward to more on this topic. I wish I had a coherent response. In general, I would prefer a society that includes such elements as universal healthcare, access to childcare, and equal pay for equal work. At the same time, I'm not clear on how we get there from where we are now.
I don't get why "socialist" is such a dirty word in the US. I come from a country where we have capitalism *and* universal healthcare (although the right wing conservatives have been chipping away at that for a while now, unfortunately).
I used to consider myself a radical feminist but I believe I now lean much more towards socialist feminism, for all the reasons you listed.
Is this seriously supposed to be an economical critique? I enjoy the way in which you glazed over socialism in practice, as opposed to socialism in theory. Socialism is a system that looks beautiful on paper, as most economic systems do. However, it is important to point out that socialism does not entirely level the economic playing field. This has been widely explored within the healthcare system of Canada through the use of academic research, scholarship and documentaries. The fact is, the middle class of Canada is the ones who get screwed in the arena of health care. If that's what you're advocating for that's fine, but you cannot say that this levels the playing field for everyone. If you are wealthy you may purchase more expensive policies, you can afford higher premiums, etc. Also, if you are wealthy you don't even need Canadian healthcare. Medical tourism is a HUGE business within areas such as Southeast Asia, particularly India. To avoid going on and on, what I'm saying is that the removal of an anti-capitalist system would not eradicate capitalist thinking. The upper class still possesses the ability to bounce around globally and receive privatized healthcare, a luxury that the middle and lower class cannot afford. I also can't believe you actually wrote, "To put it bluntly, capitalism embodies all of the male values of competition, wealth, and power". To put it bluntly, that is one of the most sexist things I've ever read. The only thing that would have made that sentence more disgusting is if you actually wrote “white male values”. Unfortunately, from reading the rest of the article, that is actually what I think you meant. That is the definition of a radical feminist viewpoint, which I'm pretty sure you stated earlier within the post that you don't subscribe to. While capitalism does thrive upon the inequality of power, socialism still allows inequalities within power to exist. Acknowledge that.
As a side note, I also cannot stand the way that you convey to your reader that there is one type of feminism, and that if the reader does not align with YOUR beliefs (which is that of a “first-world” woman whom is entirely ethnocentric and possess no critical cultural relativism) his/her beliefs are incorrect. I would normally take the time to write about what would make this article better, but I honestly think it would be better if you deleted this article and started from scratch. If you are going to begin to compare and contrast world economies you have to do your homework. Do a bit of research, and for pete’s sake, why are you only writing about the Western (or “first”) world? You address the “third” world in one measly sentence - in no way a substantial representation.
Anonymous,
I appreciate that you're the first negative comment on my site (actually, I really do), and I also appreciate your insightful critiques because it gives me something not only to clarify, but to keep in mind for the future.
I should have clarified this post with a "this is a serious glazing over, it is an absolute introduction, and the basicness of the topic is because of my readerbase."
I want to clarify this with that before I write a post that has to do with anything theoretical, I ask several of my readers (who range in age from 14 on up) about how much they already know about the topic and what they would like to see me write. The general consensus here is "we've already heard why socialism sucks. Why would anyone want it?". I do think I needed to put that background, as it wasn't clear that I do actually know more about socialism and that this may not be completely my viewpoint on the topic. I recognize that economic systems look good on paper, but that they rarely work. I also recognize my limits in my understanding of transnational socialism, although I should have put that in writing. I did not want to move to a topic where I was not completely comfortable, and I would want to learn more about socialism in other countries other than Russia and the UK before I tried to write about those.
I apologize that through that, my post came off as ethnocentric. I assure you that in most of my writing, I am quite critical, and any future posts on this topic will involve more research of a transnational sort.
As a side note, I don't aim to make everyone happy. I often am the one to stir the pot and present alternative viewpoints. If my viewpoint on socialism doesn't work for you, avoid any posts that have "socialism" in the title. I promise to clearly mark them if I write them again.
Socialism is a failed system that leads to poverty for all. True capitalism (not the state-corporate, crony capitalism fascist system we have now) creates wealth for all.
If you want to learn more before you blog further on what you now view as the positive linkage between socialism and feminism, a good place to start is the classic book "Freedom, feminism and the state" by McElroy.
Post a Comment