Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
.
Did capitalism hijack feminism, to the detriment of us all?
- Thread starter kabbes
- Start date
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
The fact that it is called "feminism" shows you how radical the idea of female equality actually was at the time the term was coined. People couldn't believe that such an outrageous notion was being put forward. "Women are equal? Why, why that's... feminist."
Why is it called "feminism" then, a label that excludes half of the population. A description of the evils of patriarchy doesn't justify the ideologies of feminism, only the overthrow of patriarchy.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Complete derail, but vitally important and interesting.
Chomsky's written on this (in Class War iirc), taking Noble's work together with his own work on public subsidy of technology research and development via the mechanism of military funding. The stuff is developed at public expense by the military, then when it's profitable given back to the private sector, then it's used to drive down wages and conditions etc.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
The Luddite Movement. Industrial Revolution technology threatening jobs.
Interesting to see the language deployed ... compared to current day. Encouragement to grass people up. "Anti-rioting"
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
It's called "recuperation", I believe. if it can't be marketed, it will be ignored. Feminism was eventually deemed marketable and some of its motifs now appear in advertising.
But are we really referring to patriarchy rather than capitalism per se here? Or can we argue that the current mode of capitalism is patriarchal by its very nature?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I find it hard to separate them out. Are there any examples of matriarchal capitalism, do you know?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Body shop
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
and kind of true, all at the same time.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I can't think of any. In fact, I can't actually think of an example of a contemporary matriarchal society.
Margaret Thatcher?
Interesting topic being a single income family through choice.
My wife ventured to an interview the other day and was offered the job part time, it paid "less" than the childcare. We would have had to take £100 monthly drop in joint income for her to work
To her it was a no-brainer and she backed out gracefully.This to me seems ludicrous but even with professional financial assistance the figures just would not work.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
I fail to see what capitalism has to do with it, to be honest. There are 17 million more people living in the UK since 1960. What is driving house prices is genuine scarcity, given planning restrictions and a limited amount of land to build on. In a fictional non-capitalist UK the nominal price might be lower, but you'd still have to graft your arse off to get a house because of the level of competition for them.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
What capitalism had to do with it -- or our brand of selfish capitalism at least -- is that only paid work is deemed to have any value. This concept has saturated us to such an extent that as women started to be recognised in the workplace, it seemed natural that they would take their full role in that workplace but without their partners giving up their status. So rather than have one paid worker and one looking after the home, we ended up with two paid workers who then have to split the full time job of looking after the home between them as well.
But all that happened is that the amount that could be paid for housing by the typical household doubled, with no change in housing stock. So we all ended up paying twice as much for the same housing. So now we have two people working in paid work for now actual material advantage to themselves, because that extra money is just going out in extra housing (and other) costs instead.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Who is arguing this? Work done in the home does have value - but it accrues almost exclusively to the family that lives in the house, and therefore shouldn't be a claim on wider society. Courts do in fact place a monetary value on it when families split up, so I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here.
People pay what they think something is worth. Everyone has their opinion over what constitutes a silly price. I think people paying £26 to see a match of football is ridiculous, but it reflects the demand for it. You might as well ask football fans to stay away from matches until clubs bring the prices down. They believe it is a price worth paying. With housing, so do dual income house buyers.
And it isn't a zero sum game as you seem to portray it. Not everyone is in a relationship capable of going dual income. For those that do, they have an edge over other, single, entrants to the housing market.
I think they'd disagree. Their choice to have a joint income household affords them a greater amount of choice about their consumption and has given them an edge in the housing market over people with single incomes. And the real value of wages has been increasing in every decade except the late 90s and 2000s. It's not true to say that the increase in housing costs has swallowed up this appreciation.
What you have had in the last ten years is a circular process of apparent wealth-creation where people in the UK have borrowed heavily to finance spending, and a lot of that spending went into the housing market – in fact so much credit was chasing the same opportunities that it started to be directed towards riskier and riskier investments, hence all of this crap about toxic debt and so forth. The borrowed money going into housing pushed prices ever higher (a fact that was encouraged by the government’s steadfast refusal to increase housing supply to the point where it kept pace with demand), and the high apparent value of property assets coupled with unsustainably low interest rates in the UK fuelled even more borrowing. This process was a real benefit to people who had got onto the housing ladder in the right place at the right time, but meant an ever-increasing cost of living for everyone else. Now of course it’s catching even more people out, in that if you still have a mortgage you are committed to a debt that is likely to become rapidly more expensive to service, while the price of the asset itself decreases – which is particularly bad if you’ve also got consumer debt that was notionally backed by the capital in the property.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
You don't need to be a feminist to believe that. That's one of the problems with feminism, it equates anti-feminism with being anti-women. Does anyone remember all that crap about how everything would be so much better with women in positions of power? The stupidity in thinking that power wasn't the problem but the gender of the person wielding it.
But femisnism is not a single ideology or idea. Its a range of differnt analysies and discourse which cross references all the other societal theories including liberalism, marxism, socialism and anarchism.
The liberal/individualistic feminism of identiy politics and arguments for more women in positions of power and influence is what capitailism has appropriated - because it incorprates some women into the power structure without challenging fundemental inequalities of power and wealth. So Thatcher or Hilary Clinton are seen (in this discourse) as champions of the fight for sexual equlity just by their sucess - rather than if they actually did anything progressive (in terms of greater sexual equality) with their position. This is particualrly noticable with thathcer who clearly did not give a toss about sexual equality and genrally seemd to support 'traditional' family values - but not to be applied to herself of course as she considered herself a 'special case'.
However there are plenty of other schools of more radical femism - from Syliva Pankhurst to Belle Hookes - that see the fight for womens rights as part of the wider struggle for universal emanciaption from oppression and inequality for everyone.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Wolveryeti, when everybody lived in couples that only had one partner in paid work, did everybody live in a worse house? Or did everybody live in the same house but pay half as much for it?
Essentially I'm just pointing out that doubling every household's income does nothing more than double inflation. Nobody actually has more spending power to buy scarce goods, because all spending power is relative and nobody is relatively better off. All that's happened is that two people are working full time instead of one, but that those two people then have to also share household work on top of that. Thus spare time for all has decreased.
This isn't just pie in the sky either -- the acceleration of house prices out of the range of a single income is tangible fact. There are many reasons for this, but mortgages accepting double incomes is certainly one key reason.
Essentially I'm just pointing out that doubling every household's income does nothing more than double inflation. Nobody actually has more spending power to buy scarce goods, because all spending power is relative and nobody is relatively better off. All that's happened is that two people are working full time instead of one, but that those two people then have to also share household work on top of that. Thus spare time for all has decreased.
This isn't just pie in the sky either -- the acceleration of house prices out of the range of a single income is tangible fact. There are many reasons for this, but mortgages accepting double incomes is certainly one key reason.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Well, I imagine those lucky enough to inherit a house paid fuck all, and those who weren't so lucky had to fork out progressively larger amounts over the decades as population growth outstripped the growth of housing supply. I don't see dual income households as the cause of high house prices, but rather a reaction to them.
Doubling nominal income with no increase in productivity would be a purely inflationary action. The increase of peoples' income in line with wealth they have created is not. A new person starting work is not a 'paper' effect - it is a real wealth-generating activity. Dual income partnerships are clearly better off - they can afford to buy more than partnerships in which only one partner is earning. That is their 'edge', because not everyone is doing the same thing.
A single income person probably has to wait longer to get a mortgage, but this hasn't changed so much from how it was in the past, when people were in their late thirties before they had enough saved up and a high enough income for a bank to give them a mortgage. Easy credit has undoubtedly played a part in creating a house price bubble that is not wealth creating and makes all housebuyers worse off, but this isn't capitalism's fault. It could have been avoided if the FSA had done its bloody job.
Some people would even argue that there's no problem with house prices - i.e. they'd prefer to pay more for a house so long as they can have it now rather than later.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Take it or leave it:
Aaron Rousseu, US film producer (inc. Trading Places and "America - from Freedom to Fascism") claims to have had a friendship with one of the Rockefellers (Nick I think) in which quite a lot of elite thinking was supposedly passed on to him.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918&q=Historic+Aaron+Russo
Among them invloves a conversation on these lines (paraphrased)
NR: What do you think of womens rights
AR: Oh it's a great thing that women have the vote / more independence etc. now.
NR: Who do you think started it?
AR: The sufferegettes etc.
NR: Nope, it was us (the elite). We did it so there'd be more taxpayers.
----------
No you can believe that or not, and it is a fairly right-ist analysis. But here's a weird thing connected to mortgages:
My dads generation got mortgages based on X (house price) x 2.5 to 3 (multiple of annual income) x approx 1.2 (income earners, most but not all households would be 1 earner)
= maybe a bit more than 3 annual salaries
Today, the same stats are more like X x 5 x 1.8
= More like 8 annual salaries.
Alot of this is the housing bubble and increased leverage / loaning looniness of the system that has brought us to the crash.
But a lot of it is about getting more people out to work, for the sake of little more than capitalism. This isnt to say that women should work less than men, if anything it is to say that men should be working less.
Another ugly aspect of all this is the perceived "need" for women to carry out termination of pregnancy for the sake of futherence in the capitalist economy.
Aaron Rousseu, US film producer (inc. Trading Places and "America - from Freedom to Fascism") claims to have had a friendship with one of the Rockefellers (Nick I think) in which quite a lot of elite thinking was supposedly passed on to him.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918&q=Historic+Aaron+Russo
Among them invloves a conversation on these lines (paraphrased)
NR: What do you think of womens rights
AR: Oh it's a great thing that women have the vote / more independence etc. now.
NR: Who do you think started it?
AR: The sufferegettes etc.
NR: Nope, it was us (the elite). We did it so there'd be more taxpayers.
----------
No you can believe that or not, and it is a fairly right-ist analysis. But here's a weird thing connected to mortgages:
My dads generation got mortgages based on X (house price) x 2.5 to 3 (multiple of annual income) x approx 1.2 (income earners, most but not all households would be 1 earner)
= maybe a bit more than 3 annual salaries
Today, the same stats are more like X x 5 x 1.8
= More like 8 annual salaries.
Alot of this is the housing bubble and increased leverage / loaning looniness of the system that has brought us to the crash.
But a lot of it is about getting more people out to work, for the sake of little more than capitalism. This isnt to say that women should work less than men, if anything it is to say that men should be working less.
Another ugly aspect of all this is the perceived "need" for women to carry out termination of pregnancy for the sake of futherence in the capitalist economy.
Yep, I've known someone terminate a pregnancy in order to build a career. Only to regret it later when they can't conceive in later life. In fact I believe the fertility industry has grown massively due to this concept. Women are (IMO)now as compelled as men when it comes to career building and it's jeopardising their chances (physically) of becoming mothers.
In effect although we think we are richer, we are in fact enslaved to the system through debt and tax payments.
electrogirl
dignity is overrated
I read this thread late last night and I think it makes alot of sense. I've always thought feminism should be about raising the profile of traditionally female roles and making them equal, rather than women going after the mascline careers (although this should be allowed too). Iit's a shame that despite everything, people still look down on unpaid work in the home, or low paid work in care industries.
And in alot of ways all of this hasn't benefitted women, feminists noted the 'triple shift' where women were having successful careers, but still having to do the majority of housework and childcare.
I'm not syaing women should stay at home at all, but I think if they, or men, do, then that should be supported and congratulated more than they are.
And in alot of ways all of this hasn't benefitted women, feminists noted the 'triple shift' where women were having successful careers, but still having to do the majority of housework and childcare.
I'm not syaing women should stay at home at all, but I think if they, or men, do, then that should be supported and congratulated more than they are.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Well, a few years ago I got mighty mighty flamed for having a thread with a premise that went a bit like this: That abortion was often a failure of female emancipation, rather than the opposite that many suppose. For one thing, I know "accidents happen" but if women are truly "empowered" you'd wonder why so many become pregnant when they dont seem to want to be pregnant. It doesnt add up.
Ann Tigonie
rabid feminist
You probably need to be a female & accidentally pregnant to get it Taff. You've heard the phrase 'biology is destiny'. Historically there haven't been many choices for the majority of women with regard to biology or destiny. You could have sex and risk getting pregnant or not have sex. Once you were married there was less choice, you fulfilled your 'conjugal duty' as it was termed and risked pregnancy, or you didn't and provided grounds for divorce based on unreasonable behaviour. Lets not mention marital rape which was criminalised here as recently as 1993.
Since about 1965 we've had the contraceptive pill so women have been more in control of their biology & therefore their destiny. Women can now have sex largely without worrying about becoming pregnant. Although not even the contraceptive pill is not 100% effective. Other methods of contraception are less reliable although some of them may be better for the body in the long term.
You can see what the options have been & what they are now. Sometimes pregnancy is desired and sometimes its not. The question as I see it is, should women who are accidentally pregnant be made to continue with an unwanted pregnancy or be given access to safe abortion. In other words should biology control a woman's destiny, or should we empower women to control their own destiny by allowing them to have a choice about if & when they become pregnant & a choice about how many children they might chose to have.
For me its all about getting it in context.
ska invita
back on the other side
I started a thread on similiar grounds a year back, with a Sun-style title:
Feminism has led to greater worker exploitation
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=206624
The feminist battle for equal pay was obviously crucial - and still isnt over. Its a fair point that many women have always worked, but for a lot less than men.
The real problem has been the stalled battle for lower working hours, and a shorter working week. This has been blown out the water by the global race to the bottom, a product of the sucessful globalisation of capitalism.
British workers today cant fight for a four day week, when as it is we are in direct 'competition' with exploited workers around the world.
I dont think feminism can be blamed for this situation in any way. I would be interested to see more feminist critiques of broad economics though... I asked if anyone knew of any in the thread mentioned above, but got no responses...
Ann Tigonie
rabid feminist
The feminist critiques are there, hundreds of them. You probably got no response because you are asking someone else to do the research and provide you with the information you seek.
Did capitalism hijack feminism, to the detriment of us all?
No middleclass women who were apparently feminists hijacked feminism in order to achieve socio-economic parity with there husbands etc to work as middle class professionals. Its why life for most women at the bottom of society has hardly changed and its why you never see couples from a mixed social class/profession
No middleclass women who were apparently feminists hijacked feminism in order to achieve socio-economic parity with there husbands etc to work as middle class professionals. Its why life for most women at the bottom of society has hardly changed and its why you never see couples from a mixed social class/profession
dennisr
the acceptable face
comprehension <--------------------------------------------------->brassic the prole
Similar threads
