Please talk to me about feminism and capitalism!

[QuentinSummers]

On the "what kind of feminist are you?" quiz that's been shared here a couple of times there are a couple of questions suggesting women can't become equal under capitalism.
Then the other day I read about non earners (who are predominantly women) having no value in a capitalist system.
I don't know about political theory but sure someone here will. Could someone explain how feminism and capitalism could or couldn't work together?
Intuitively I feel like our economic/political system does need to change to take into account the unpaid work needed to run a household/raise children/look after people in society who can't support themselves. What political systems would support this and how?
Thanks everyone!

(no-one send that class didn't matter. But this is the feminist board. If you want a discussion about class, not feminism, then go to somewhere designed for that. We're very interested in the intersection of class, gender, race etc. I've implied it in my posts about how we have multiple ways to differentiate. And, as much as I find the most recent article interesting, and I'm in agreement with much of it, that isn't what the OP wanted to discuss. So - start a thread about how the wc are being oppressed by neoliberalism. There are many people on MN who would happily join in with you.)

This would be an excellent thread to continue discussions purely about class, and ignoring feminism

Your comments are more relevant there.

KickAssAngel, feminism is NOT oppositional to capitalism. Capitalism - to personify it - does not want you doing 'wifework'. It has no need of you in the home anymore. It has no need of the family anymore. It would far rather you are divorced and out having a career, with more money to spend on 'clothes, cosmetics etc'. The one and only feminist position that capitalism does not share is opposition to the sex industry, and even then lots of feminists don't think the sex industries should be criminalised by the state.

The expectation that you do 'wifework' is of course an issue in our society, but it's one that has nothing to do with capitalism.

Well, I'd put it the other way round. If this is a feminist board then perhaps a discussion about capitalism isn't appropriate if economic class is prohibited from that discussion. Because you can't talk intelligibly about capitalism without talking about economic class. Capitalism is definable as a relationship between producer, worker and consumer in which the producer has the most substantial claim to the profit generated by that relationship. That is not an inherently gendered organisation. You could have a capitalism system with women owning the means of production, which would be a more feminist society but not a less capitalist one.

That was a list of ways (just off the top of my head) in which women are affected by capitalism. It doesn't mean that feminism, and capitalism, as theoretical concepts, are opposed to one another. I would argue that capitalism & communism are pretty oppositional (although how they play out in RL isn't the same as theory).

Everyone is affected by whatever society they live in (and vice versa), and the experiences of women are clearly affected by whatever 'system' operates in their country. There isn't a country which is 100% capitalist (or any other system) so all of these discussions have to try and look towards theory, with some reference to RL examples.

Worrying about working class men having it worse than middle class women is just another variation of "what about the menz", isn't it?

Sure, and they're all bad things which need addressing. I just think that sometimes when feminists refer to the 'capitalist patriarchy' they're off the mark a bit. Of course patriarchy finds its way into capitalist culture (porn is a perfect example), but as you say it just finds its way into any system. In some ways, capitalism is completely inimical to the old, patriarchal order.

Do you remember that Ashley Maddison business? This was the quintessential cynical capitalist operation: a dating service marketed at people in relationships that allows them to cheat on their partners. On the one hand there was a seemingly patriarchal element, because it attracted (mainly) rich men who wanted to cheat on their wives. But in another way, by encouraging adultery, it was putting the institution of the family in jeopardy. The point is that whoever owns Ashley Madison could not care less about the family, or whether men are cheating on their wives or women are cheating on their husbands, just as long as the money roles in.

Worrying about working class men having it worse than middle class women is just another variation of "what about the menz", isn't it?

No, it just serves to substantiate my point that the problem of capitalism is not a problem of gender, but a problem of economic class. And I think in some ways working class men have it worse than working class women for historically contingent reasons.

Capitalism did confine women to the home when that was economically necessary, but now it isn't.

User capitalism will run out of steam pretty quickly if women stop having babies, or a home life and just have careers. The human race would stop! Feminism supports equality, and that means valuing the things only women can do. Capitalism does not value those things, so the two are not comfortable bedfellows

Iris Marion Young,Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy (Princeton, Princeton Uni Press, 1997)
Young Intersecting Voices

If anyone is really interested in this, I would recommend this book. It deals with the tensions between the political and personal.

Or this article jane flax

User capitalism will run out of steam pretty quickly if women stop having babies, or a home life and just have careers.

Sure, but if tomorrow men all decided to stay at home with the kids and women went out to work full time, capitalism - to personify it again - wouldn't give a shit. That's the point. It doesn't benefit specifically from women looking after children..

And that kind of leads on to my point about class. Being a full time parent used to be though of as subjugative role, but now in some ways it's a privileged position. Working class people these days not only don't have careers, but no longer have a job for life. The working class guy used to go off to the mine or the shipyard with a real sense of pride and empowerment, his wife stuck at home doing all the drudgery, and it would go on like to that to the end of their days. Now however the working-class guy is struggling to find work - or isn't in work at all. But the working class woman can be a mum, which at least gives her a sense of identity, and a place in the world. And this is what some feminists don't get: a lot of poorer women are choosing to stay at home with the kids because in the 21st century that position is far more empowering and rewarding than the kind of jobs she'd have to do. If I was pregnant and my choice was between working in a warehouse for a minimum wage and staying at home with the kids and being a mum, I'd opt for the mum.

The working class guy used to go off to the mine or the shipyard with a real sense of pride and empowerment

I seriously, seriously, doubt this. It goes hand in hand with the 'happy, loyal' servant willing to doff their cap and bend the knee as the master walked past.

Why do you think that revolutions happened? The ruling class in the UK had just about enough sense/kindness not to oppress their workers too much, and kept their heads. They also adapted to a new political system, and the middle classes became more powerful than they had before.

But during ALL of these situations, women were and still are, the financial, cultural and hierarchical losers when compared compared to the men of their peers. So, the relationship between women & capitalism is about the same as it was between women and the feudal system. Nowadays, they're bought & sold in the form of sex work and media sexploitation (crap word, but ykwim) instead of being the mistress/servant of the lord of the manor, but they're still treated as more of a commodity than men are. That's the real relationship between feminism & capitalism - women as consumables.

I don't buy the merry pitworker going off to work with a hi-ho either...

Capitalism benefits from women staying at home to look after the kids and do the household chores because it enables men to be more productive at work. Without having to pay women to perform these supporting roles.

I seriously, seriously, doubt this. It goes hand in hand with the 'happy, loyal' servant willing to doff their cap and bend the knee as the master walked past.

Of course, of course....but there is no doubt that overall the working classes were better off in certain ways in the Keynesian mixed economy (1948 - 79, roughly), than they are in neoliberal economies, struggling to find zero hours contracts to pay unaffordable rents. Even if employers exploited their workers back them, strong unions existed to protect them. And lots of employers recognised some degree of responsibility for the welfare of their workforce. Cadbury's built an entire village for their workers to live in, something unimaginable now. Homelessness barely existed in the 1950's and 1960s to the point where sociologists predicted it would soon die out.

In some ways, your point proves how bad things have become. Now the exploited, alienated worker that Marx wrote about has become a privileged position, because the one thing worse than being exploited is not being wanted at all.

A lot of the rights people won in the UK were not the result of a revolution, but the labour movement, which is more of a long, hard struggle that ran from the later 19th century up until the power. The post-war settlement and welfare state was then destroyed with great relish by Margaret Thatcher.

The sex industry is as much, if not more, a consequence of capitalism than patriarchy. Think of it this way: however bad things still are for women, they are a lot more liberated than they were 50 years ago, yes? So in that case why has the sex industry expanded at a huge rate? Shouldn't it be declining with patriarchy? Quite simply, the sex industry is a form of commerce that fills the gap left by the destruction of the welfare state economy. Once capitalism finds it doesn't have any coal or steel to capitalise, it moves onto people - capitalising their desires and bodies. It's currently doing some very strange things like capitalising knowledge and data. It's like a big beast that will turn absolutely anything into a form of capital. The prostitute or cam girl is the archetypal gig economy worker of the 21st century. Yes, she's being exploited, but is she being exploited anymore than her boyfriend who is working at Sports Direct? And she'll be making more . money than him. That's not an apology for prostitution by the way.

Capitalism benefits from women staying at home to look after the kids and do the household chores because it enables men to be more productive at work.

No, capitalism wants to REDUCE labour - to liquidate it completely even. Why do you think people are continually being laid off by big corporations?

And why would it want specifically men to be productive at work these days? There's very little work now that involves heavy lifting. If anything, capitalism wants women working in the service economy, not men.

A lot of the rights people won in the UK were not the result of a revolution, but the labour movement, which is more of a long, hard struggle that ran from the later 19th century up until the power

Dunno what happened there - I'm tired and this autocorrect thing is crap. Mean to read:

A lot of the rights people won in the UK were not the result of a revolution, but the labour movement, which was more of a long, hard struggle that ran from the later 19th century up until the war and the foundation of the welfare state.

Yes, she's being exploited, but is she being exploited anymore than her boyfriend who is working at Sports Direct?

Are you serious? Of course she is.

No she isn't. The manner of her exploitation might be different, and the consequences worse - but she's not being used anymore than he is. They're just being used for different things.

Nonsense.

How? The low paid zero hours worker is being exploited for his labour; and the prostitute is being exploited for her body. They're both being exploited.

Can recommend a book on the subject "WHO COOKED ADAM SMITHS DINNER?"

Crikey, if you really can't see the difference between the sex industry and the retail industry there's not much hope is there

but women are also working in zero hours jobs. And being exploited by the sex industry (and then ALL women are seen as sexually for purchase as a result). And working to raise children, care for the elderly etc.

You can't look at capitalism as if it operates in a pure state. It operates within a patriarchal society. Anything you can say about the plight of the working man goes extra for the females of each class. So, discussing what capitalism does for women is a very relevant point.

There are multiple studies showing that in poorer economies, societies etc. helping women improves the condition of all of the community, but helping men only helps the men. So - it is definitely worth investigating how women's experiences relate to capitalism. Their experiences and responses to different economic structures are worth looking at.

Thanks for the book recommendation wheresmy. And thanks for the excellent posts kickass.

Crikey, if you really can't see the difference between the sex industry and the retail industry there's not much hope is there

I didn't say there isn't a difference.