“Why don’t we hear more feminist voices criticizing capitalism?” a reader asks.
“Because there is no feminism without capitalism,” is my answer.
Before I explain why I say that, I want to clarify my definitions of both capitalism and feminism.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.
I took both definitions from Wikipedia to make our lives easier with simple, unencumbered, unemotional definitions.
Women have historically been subjected to men for two physiological reasons:
1. Women are smaller physically and can be overpowered by the greater physical force of men.
2. Women are limited by the birth cycle. If you spend your entire life pregnant, giving birth, nursing, pregnant, giving birth, and so on, this will put you in a position of dependence towards somebody who is not similarly limited.
This is all explained in detail and beautifully by the great Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex.
Now, capitalism is a system where your physical bulk becomes completely and utterly irrelevant. A tiny, feeble, bed-ridden person can easily be the master of 10,000 giants who will follow the small person’s every command. This isn’t the feudal system where brute force rules everything and everyone. In capitalism, money becomes the decisive factor. As a result, the smaller size and the lesser physical strength of women becomes completely irrelevant. The liberatory potential of this is huge.
In a similar way, capitalism frees women from the dependence on the birth cycle. As a system driven by profit above all, it comes to fulfill the huge demand for birth control. Capitalism is always driven by competition. Which is why any product that is in demand, that can be potentially sold to a big enough group of people, will keep getting developed, improved, and offered for consumption. Birth control, formula, breast pumps, day cares, nurseries, etc. have all liberated women from depending on their physiology.
It is no coincidence that feminism and capitalism developed at the same time and at a similar pace. If the capitalism hadn’t come into existence, I am convinced that we would still see the feudal society where women had to be hidden and closely guarded or be raped routinely.
This is a topic where I welcome all kinds of disagreement because I want to see whether and how this argument can be taken apart.
Clarissa's Blog 
Free market, not capitalism!
LikeLike
Maybe feminism came from in the same time than the birth capitalism, but capitalism is an enemy of feminism, not as much as statism like you demonstrate, though.
“Now, capitalism is a system where your physical bulk becomes completely and utterly irrelevant.”
What????
“A tiny, feeble, bed-ridden person can easily be the master of 10,000 giants who will follow the small person’s every command.”
Yes, at least this COULD happen, but not all the time, and not so often.
“As a result, the smaller size and the lesser physical strength of women becomes completely irrelevant.”
Again, what?????
“his isn’t the feudal system where brute force rules everything and everyone.”
Of course, but it’s a corpo-feudal system dominated by men where their wealth rules almost everything and everyone
“In capitalism, money becomes the decisive factor.”
Money is detained mainly by men. Case closed fot this.
“It is no coincidence that feminism and capitalism developed at the same time and at a similar pace. If the capitalism hadn’t come into existence, I am convinced that we would still see the feudal society where women had to be hidden and closely guarded or be raped routinely.”
Maybe you’re right. But again, right now, capitalism is an enemy for feminism, and we should move on to a less autoritarian free-market kind of society.
LikeLike
May be I’ll write more tomorrow, but today only 1 first idea which immediately jumped to my brain:
A tiny, feeble, bed-ridden person can easily be the master of 10,000 giants who will follow the small person’s every command.
I don’t see a connection to capitalism. Seems to me in matters of great power it has always been like that. A king or any ancient ruler could be feeble. Their physical strength wasn’t what gave them power. Religious leaders had plenty of power too. In the feudal system there were rich merchants, who paid money to have their travelling goods protected. And I forgot that feudal lords and rulers paid their servants/soldiers too, they didn’t make numerous people submit because of being giants in body themselves. In Duma’s “Twenty Years After” mercenaries leave the king, who can’t pay them. Having money, a brain and being born into good position in society did the trick, quite similar to today. The great difference was undeveloped (compared to today) technology. If I don’t understand something, I’ll be glad to hear your pov & explanation.
1. Women are smaller physically and can be overpowered by the greater physical force of men.
…
capitalism is a system where your physical bulk becomes completely and utterly irrelevant.
No, technology creates a world where our physical body becomes less and less important as time passes. F.e. new developments to let people with disabilities function better & better, women in the military since we have rifles (and not heavy rifles at that!) rather than trying to kill each other with stones & knives like Cain did Abel, tractors rather than ploughs, etc. I mean, under capitalism who works worse – looses, so women would be in second place without technology letting them do the same job.
Soviet Union wasn’t capitalistic, yet weren’t women supposed to work there and were officially at least called equal. Why can’t there be not capitalism, yet with women equal to men because now they can do the same job?
LikeLike
“Soviet Union wasn’t capitalistic”
I’m not sure of that, in fact. I think that statist communism is paradoxically the most complete expression of capitalism.
I cite François Tremblay:
“Capitalism, as 99.9999% of the world understands it, is this statist economic system that we currently have in most of the Western world, a system where there is a synergy between the ruling class and the rich and powerful corporate elements within a society, where they lend mutual aid to each other as much as they can, at the expense of the general population.
As Market Anarchists, we oppose capitalism for many reasons, the most important of these being that we oppose the State as a whole. Capitalism, like socialism and communism, can be best described as a form of relationship between the State and corporations. In capitalism, the State is the ally of corporations, in socialism the State is the antagonist of corporations, and in communism the State takes over all corporations and thus fully assumes corporate power (which leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that communism is merely the fullest expression of capitalism).”
LikeLike
“at the expense of the general population… in socialism the State is the antagonist of corporations”
So socialism is the friend of feminism, according to this, which suits given below example of day care and mothers being freer work normally in social democracies in some Europe countries rather than in more capitalistic USA.
In USA in the name of capitalism Medicare and Medicaid and other social programs are planned to be cut, which will in practice put the burden on women and put them home to care for kids and elders. Without government capitalism won’t change this situation for women’s benefit.
LikeLike
Not in the State socialist setting. This is not what François Tremblay and myself think.
LikeLike
Wait, so what’s the ideal? I thought it was similar to Israel, capitalism with some restrictions and safety net.
LikeLike
For me, the ideal is a no state free-market kind of society.
With his shylockean tax rate, Israël is certainly not a model to emulate. Québec Nanny State is a fiscal paradise compared to that.
LikeLike
No state? It has to go against human instincts, like communism did. People have rooted in biology tendencies to devide the world on Us vs Them and dislike those who are different. Of course, it’s nothing good now, even if it helped our ancestors survive, but I don’t know whether we’ll ever evolve to this condition.
In Israel without army all Jews would already be dead long ago, so I prefer restricting myself to my century and several that come afterward (if not one too many atom bombs fall). Thinking about better world can be helpful, but if the leap is too great, it won’t be more than daydreaming.
Besides, I don’t see why you think free-market with zero restrictions is the ideal. Why free-market is this magic thing that will create a Heaven on Earth, yet now even in economics degree people study that it can’t solve all problems, like public goods (light bulbs on the street), polution which a factory of some capitalist creates and others pay for (sometimes with their lives), etc …
LikeLike
Québec is a province of Canada.
LikeLike
I think we are getting lost in terminology here. When I say “socialism”, I mean the Soviet Union. That is, the system where the means of production are owned by the state. Obviously, I’m 100% opposed to that system. If by socialism you mean a social safety net and some kind of welfare programs, they are a product of capitalism and I am all for them.
LikeLike
In the USSR, the means of production were owned by the state. I would not refer t this system as “capitalist” because then the term becomes too watered down to be of any use.
“Capitalism, like socialism and communism, can be best described as a form of relationship between the State and corporations.”
-I gave my definition of capitalism in the post. This is the only capitalism I’m talking about.
LikeLike
I agree that a the emergence a freer market (that’s what capitalism had accomplished in the past, by it’s not the only way, nor the best, to do that) is a great thing for feminism. I agree that a free-market kind of society would be the most feminist society that could exists, but It seems that you think that actual capitalism is a friend for feminism, which I can’t disagreeing with you more.
And if you really think that, this is the worse thing you’ve ever wrote here.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand the difference between capitalism and a free market. Please feel free to explain what the difference would be in practical terms.
LikeLike
Free market proprietarism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets, in voluntary structures. (yeah, that’s your definition of capitalism, except for the last 3 words)
Free market anti-capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately possessed (this is different than “owned”) and operated for the benefit of workers and costumers, usually in competitive markets, in non-hierarchical structures. (this is my definition, the anarchist definition)
LikeLike
OK, now it’s getting clearer. So why would the private possessor work for the benefit of workers instead of her own benefit? What would be the motivation?
LikeLike
The private possessor is also a worker.
LikeLike
And I agree that a lesser statist society is great for feminism. I think that’s what you tried to say. Bur again, actual capitalism is better than statist communism, but this a bad system for feminism.
Québec Grande Noirceur Era a is a great example of this.
LikeLike
And I agree that a lesser statist society is great for feminism. I think that’s what you tried to say. But again, actual capitalism is better than statist communism but this a bad system for feminism.
Québec Grande Noirceur Era a is a great example of this.
LikeLike
*who works worse – looses*
I meant, loses, not looses.
So, I wanted to say that changing technology and developing science changed our world: brought secularism, changed government systems (not feudal society any longer), let women improve their position, caused both capitalism and feminism. And not that capitalism brought to life feminism. Now, except for religious people believing in Heaven and God, I don’t see why I should view something as Good Only. If most changes were great, it doesn’t mean others don’t badly demand corrections and further improvements.
Capitalism alone doesn’t supply day cares and nurseries for all interested women for numerous reasons. F.e. high cost, if mother works min wage job, probably with changing hours. I can’t now analyze exactly why, but in practice we see that In social countries with government making day care accessable, more women send children there and feel free go to work and in general live better than in free, unrestricted capitalism.
I loved The Second Sex, yet was bored by Simone de Beauvoir’s autobiography of her teen years. What do you think of it? Worth to try end reading?
LikeLike
But a freer market is beneficial for science and technological development. Don’t forget that.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s why I see ideal in somewhat restricted capitalism in social democracy like in some Europe countries.
LikeLike
The best existing system is not the ideal system.
LikeLike
You should read Emma Goldman.
LikeLike
“Soviet Union wasn’t capitalistic, yet weren’t women supposed to work there and were officially at least called equal.”
-In the USSR women were limited to the least paying most physically demanding jobs. It was a fiercely patriarchal society.
As for the technology, the Industrial revolution also coincided with capitalism. Capitalism gives incentives to the daily developments in technology, unlike any other system that has actually existed. In the USSR, for example, the only technology that kind of somehow developed was the military. As for, say, contraception and hygienic aides to menstruation, there were simply not there because there was no capitalism to spur them into existence.
LikeLike
“In the USSR women were limited to the least paying most physically demanding jobs. It was a fiercely patriarchal society.”
I agree, actual capitalism is better but this is a patriarchal system.
“As for the technology, the Industrial revolution also coincided with capitalism. Capitalism gives incentives to the daily developments in technology, unlike any other system that has actually existed.”
“That has actually existed” is the key here, and I somewhat agree. But industrial revolution coincided also with the emergence of a freer market. And free markets are better than capitalism to gives incentives for technology. Capitalism isn’t the only, nor the best, way to achieve a freer market.
“As for, say, contraception and hygienic aides to menstruation, there were simply not there because there was no capitalism to spur them into existence.”
No free market, not capitalism.
LikeLike
As for inequality and men having a greater access to resources than women today, this is self-evident and doesn’t need to be repeated. Obviously, that’s true. However, today in developed capitalist societies there are many many many more women in responsible positions politically, in the business world, in academia, etc. Compared to any other system that existed in the past, the situation is obviously much better. Will anybody seriously argue that things were better for women in the Western world in 711? 1011? 1311? 1611?
If not, then what are we arguing about here? That there is some imaginary, undefined, pie-in-the-sky system that could be better? Yes, quite possible. This is not what I’m writing about here, though.
LikeLike
“However, today in developed capitalist societies there are many many many more women in responsible positions politically, in the business world, in academia, etc.”
I agree but a feminst society is impossible in a capitalist setting.
“Compared to any other system that existed in the past, the situation is obviously much better.”
Again the key is “any other system that existed in the past”. But we should move on to a less autoritarian free market society to really obtain a feminist society.
“Will anybody seriously argue that things were better for women in the Western world in 711? 1011? 1311? 1611?”
No. This is not the point of my criticism. A improved system is not necessarily is good system.
“That there is some imaginary, undefined, pie-in-the-sky system that could be better? Yes, quite possible. This is not what I’m writing about here, though.”
Yeah, but that’s what your “a reader” want to talk about.
I wonder why I should talk about using imagination with a Letters academician. I thought that is a natural thing to do here.
LikeLike
Feel free to discuss anything you want, of course. However, I insist that the point I was trying to make with this post is that from all systems that actually existed in practice capitalism brought the best advances to women. If we agree on that, we can definitely move ahead to a discussion of new alternatives.
“But we should move on to a less autoritarian free market society to really obtain a feminist society.”
-This is very possible. And there is nothing in my post that contradicts it. 🙂
LikeLike
‘I can’t now analyze exactly why, but in practice we see that In social countries with government making day care accessable, more women send children there and feel free go to work and in general live better than in free, unrestricted capitalism.”
-My sister who lives in Quebec had to jump through hoops to get her kid into daycare. She now pays $60 PER DAY to have her there. And she pays in taxes what I make in an entire year to maintain a bunch of useless bureaucrats. So let’s not idealize “social countries.”
LikeLike
Social mediocracy is capitalist system.
LikeLike
David, you need to talk to me in a language I will understand. 🙂 I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “social mediocracy.’
LikeLike
Or “social liberalism” (in the USA meaning)
LikeLike
Can you give a practical example of what you mean by that?
LikeLike
Québec Revolution Tranquille policies
LikeLike
Social mediocracy is a capitalist system. You talk about the failure of statist policies, not the failure of “non-capitalist” polcicies.
LikeLike
«capitalism developed at the same time and at a similar pace than feminism» this is not 100% true, but I won’t be a richard about it (capitalism developed before and faster than feminism).
There are a lot of types of feminism, so to say that feminism is this or that, is misleading. Some feminists do oppose capitalism.
And socialism, anarchism and marxism developed with captialism just as well as feminism.
Part of the problem is that a lof of people on the left who are fighting against capitalism don’t really care about patriarchy. Some of them can be really misogynists. Those people don’t want to fight with feminists so why whould they want to fight with some anti-capitalism mysogynists guys?
+, almost everybody ask for reforms nows a day. They see a revolution in Egypt when all those people want are some jobs, something to eat and a little bit more democracry.
LikeLike
I found my definition on Wikipedia. 🙂 The goal was to avoid getting lost in terminology and find the lowest common denominator. 🙂
LikeLike
I get that but it is misleading. Especially if somebody wonder why most feminists don’t oppose capitalism.
The ones I’ve dealt the most were radicals and did oppose capitalism. They were all close to the anarchist movement.
Of course, mainsteam won’t pay attention to them. But if you rely on mainstreams medias to inform you, you deserve to live in ingorance.
LikeLike
Feel free to offer your own definition of feminism. I’d definitely be interested to hear it.
Is there a reason why the topic is especially attractive to Quebecois readers? The friend who asked the question addressed in the post is also from Quebec. Curious.
LikeLike
For some reason, feminism is stronger in Quebec than anywhere in the world, as far as I know. I am not sure why to be honest. I don’t have an anwser on that one. But at the same time, masculinism is bigger in here than anywhere else, as a reaction to a stong feminist movement.
I don’t know if I can give you one definition of feminism, considering there are different kinds of feminism. In theory, they all want equality between men and women and they all oppose patriarchy, but this may require more details.
I took a course on feminism and made some works on it. Maybe I could send those to you, but they are in french. So mabe it won’t help.
LikeLike
Isn’t the strongest feminism in the world the one in the Scandinavian countries?
LikeLike
I really would not know between those two. Let’s just say it is very strong in Quebec and a lot of men can’t deal with it.
Wich brought the events at polytechnique.
LikeLike
Scandivian countries are more feminist than Québec. But in Americas, Québec is the most feminism nation.
LikeLike
That, of course, is true.
Vive Quebec! 🙂
LikeLike
Norway is maybe the strongest feminist democracy in the world
There are some primitive indigeneous matriarchal micro-societies in Africa.
LikeLike
In theory yes, feminists/feminism…..opposes patriarchy, however, when a women defines/describes herself….as a feminist and gets married and takes his name…..she is contradicting herself. Even though she has exercised choice.
LikeLike
That’s very true.
LikeLike
I knew this was going to be an ultra-popular thread. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
The funny thing in all of this is that most women treat me like shit, but I fully support feminism (as long as we are not talking about liberal feminism).
I guess you have to be able to seperate different things in life. Something most people can’t or won’t do.
LikeLike
I’m very sorry to hear about your bad experiences with women. Do you know why that happens? I get a feeling you are a good, intelligent, interesting person who respects women, so I don’t know why things should be bad for you.
LikeLike
Maybe we should do a survey. 🙂
I never do the right thing, never say the right thing. I am not sure what the right thing is suppose to be anway.
This may only be bad luck as it is not just a problem with women. It is much bigger than that. I just always end up putting myself in bad situations and end up screwing myself over again and again. Wich is pretty much why I think life sucks, at least for me.
And sorry for all the spelling mistakes in my others posts.
LikeLike
Don’t worry about spelling. it’s really unimportant as long as everybody understands each other.
LikeLike
“The funny thing in all of this is that most women treat me like shit, but I fully support feminism (as long as we are not talking about liberal feminism).”
Me too.
LikeLike
Gosh, that’s sad to hear. 😦
LikeLike
But I’m in a great mood now. Don’t worry.
LikeLike
Because they support liberal feminism?
LikeLike
What do you consider to be “liberal feminism?” There are radical feminists, conservative feminists and liberal feminists of which I consider myself one. I am morally/socially uncon-ventional and don’t believe in or live in the past….as in….the status quo.
LikeLike
I think really it is modernity that makes feminism possible, more broadly speaking. Capitalism of course is also associated with development of modernity. Even Marx saw capitalism as historically progressive in relation to feudalism.
LikeLike
Very true. Every anti-feminist is always and by necessity a person who is uncomfortable with most aspects of modernity.
LikeLike
And, it does seem that the Tea Party is trying its best to move us to a neofeudalist system. Only by swearing fealty to someone wealthy (lord) will non wealthy people be able to survive.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
The following is possible is the capitalism system, not in a free-market system (even in the proprietarism setting)
1) Patents and copyrights
2) Corporations
3) State money with variable monetary supply and state-determined interest rates
4) Privatization of public services (The State sells something that he unowns to corporations).
5) Militaro-industrial complex.
6) Electoral Investment in political parties and political corruption.
7) Private regulated monopolies, like Gaz Métro in Québec.
8) Gas cartels
etc. etc. etc.
LikeLike
Without patent why invest thousands, millons of $ to discover a new medicine, when other firms will steal it next day and profit, while your development money won’t return in profits and your firm may be out of business as a result?
Without copyrights professional writers won’t have money to pay their bills.
Of course, there should be a golden middle here between encouraging development and giving rights for too many years/ generations, as author’s rights.
What about public products? Will each town decide on its’ own police force, fire department, etc? Will different fire departments compete against each other in one town? What about pollution of environment: 1 profits now and thousands die later?
LikeLike
The following is possible is the capitalism system, not in a free-market system (even in the proprietarism setting)
1) Patents and copyrights
2) Corporations
3) State money with variable monetary supply and state-determined interest rates
4) Privatization of public services (The State sells something that he unowns to corporations).
5) Militaro-industrial complex.
6) Electoral Investment in political parties and political corruption.
7) Private regulated monopolies, like Gaz Métro in Québec.
8- Gas cartels
etc. etc. etc.
LikeLike
Sounds truly dystopian. If copyrights do not exist, writers and artists will be unable to make a living. Period.
This means general lower quality of artistic production.
LikeLike
Do you know the copyleft concept?
LikeLike
No. The word sounds nonsensical. It uses the opposites ‘right’ and ‘left’ whereas the syllable ‘right’ in ‘copyright’ is a completely different word which happens to be spelled the same as ‘right’ as in ‘right hand.’ Whatever it means, it is a semantic travesty of the same outrageous ilk as ‘webinar’ or the one you used earlier (which Clarissa excused you for) ‘medias’.
LikeLike
It’s called a pun. You could say “copywrong” too.
LikeLike
I want to know it and your answers to my questions RE medicine development and environmental pollution and public goods and in general, as Clarissa asked, what motivation will make the market beneficial to usual people, except only rich elite, who already live in no state land since capital freely moves around the globe. There was even a long newspaper article about capitalist elite as no borders, world of their own citizens, which I don’t have a link to now.
LikeLike
Zygmunt Bauman writes about it at length in Liquid Modernity. I highly recommend.
LikeLike
I checked and unfortunately can’t lend it. Are there no article/s about it? May be you’ll write a post on the topic? I am sure it’ll be extremely popular too. 🙂
Bringing light to the masses, so to speak.
LikeLike
I already did: https://clarissasblog.com/2011/04/24/zygmunt-baumans-liquid-modernity-a-review-part-i/
LikeLike
May be you could at least tell why he thinks “what motivation will make the market beneficial to usual people, except only rich elite”. At this stage of technological development how can one achieve that without enforcement by states’ power or some Earth-wide army force.
LikeLike
Click to access freeculture.pdf
LikeLike
“If copyrights do not exist, writers and artists will be unable to make a living. ”
Without copyright, standardized pop culture market an industrial showbusiness will be vanished and real creation will take all the place.
LikeLike
Without copyright, standardized pop culture market and industrial showbusiness will be vanished and real creation will take all the place.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
LikeLike
Standardized pop culture, such as big sports (MLB, NFL, NBA) which serve no useful function will still exist. Worthwhile things such as good novels will not. It is already almost impossible for an author to make a living writing. Fantasies about some system which does not exist do not change this.
LikeLike
Hear, hear! I sound like a broken record today, agreeing with David Bellamy about everything. 🙂
LikeLike
And how professionnal sports would take the same place than now without governments?
“Worthwhile things such as good novels will not. It is already almost impossible for an author to make a living writing. ”
That’s the case actually, in the capitalist system, because pop copyright-driven culture takes all the place.
LikeLike
The idea that people prefer to listen to Justin Bieber instead of Bethoven because of copyright is inventive, of course, but not extremely convincing. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
This does not make any sense to me at all.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_intellectual_property
LikeLike
Women being able to use birth control to retain their advantage isn’t as optimal as you are making it out to be- it just means that we have a better chance to compete with men *as long as we don’t have kids*. Having enough money to pay someone else to raise them doesn’t negate the disadvantage having children has on a woman’s career. It means that it works out pretty well as long as you don’t live your life in a self determined fashion.
What would really make things optimal for women would be a big social system that makes the funding of children and the labor of raising them a society-wide shared effort, one that would democratize the economic system as to eliminate unnecessary labor and production. Then men and women wouldn’t be faulted for actually raising kids and would have enough time to do so. So, in short, socialism. Your post lacks any reason why socialism wouldn’t work better than capitalism, actually.
As for the strength of a person being irrelevant in a capitalist society- try reading The Jungle sometime.
LikeLike
“Having enough money to pay someone else to raise them doesn’t negate the disadvantage having children has on a woman’s career. ”
-You are absolutely right. However, things are better in this respect today than they were 500 or 1000 years ago. Which is what my post is about. The business of feminism is very very far from being done.
“Then men and women wouldn’t be faulted for actually raising kids and would have enough time to do so”
-I’m not sure what that means. Who faults whom for raising kids? All I see is the endless bashing of working mothers.
“As for the strength of a person being irrelevant in a capitalist society- try reading The Jungle sometime.”
-I read it twice. Have you noticed what year it was written?
LikeLike
This is one of the most bat sh*it insane comments I have read on this site. Why the hell should I pay for someone else’s baby? There is absolutely no rational way to argue such a travesty.
LikeLike
Clarissa:
I agree with you completely. I would take your hypothesis a stage further: Capitalism, properly defined, is the best defence against any form of discrimination. This formed the basis for Gary Becker’s doctoral dissertation at Chicago. Whether the discrimination is based on sex, race, religion, appearance, or country, the profit-motive penalizes anyone who refuses to employ or supply some one else on a discriminatory basis. Oh, yes! There is one exception. Discrimination on the basis of merit pays off under capitalism!
Non-market based systems discriminate without penalty according to the preference of the person in authority. Indeed, like-minded individuals may pay individuals to discriminate against merit – as is evident in affirmative action programs across the globe.
LikeLike
*Whether the discrimination is based on sex, race, religion, appearance, or country, the profit-motive penalizes anyone who refuses to employ or supply some one else on a discriminatory basis. Oh, yes!*
It isn’t that simple. ECHIDNE of the snakes wrote a very interesting post on the topic: “Why Would Wal-Mart Hire Any Men?” on June 21, 2011
Search in the middle of this page:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2011_06_19_archive.html
LikeLike
I thought of my own example: there is a demand for late-term and otherwise abortions in some parts of USA, you in? Or afraid to be killed by all kinds of fanatics as you exit church with your family? People may be pressured very effectively by society not to provide some services and to discriminate. The doctors, who still perform abortions, hardly do it for profit. All kinds of horrible discriminatory laws may be passed too (I talk about democracy). Unless public opinion changes breaking some social prohibitions won’t lead to profits in many cases. F.e. when abortion was illegal, rich women had them, while poor women died from botched abortions in capitalist USA. People aren’t always what is called “100% rational” OR to put it otherwise have other inputs in their utility functions than money.
LikeLike
It’s true that people who have not fully interiorized the capitalist principle of profit above all are likely to sabotage themselves and others. This actually confirms Charles Rowley’s statement. 🙂
LikeLike
Still nobody answered why profit above all, f.e. environmental destruction, if it’s not you who’ll pay, will bring great results. Meanwhile, it has brought spilled oil with damage for decades to come, among other not better things.
People are moved by feelings a lot, look at racists, anti-(whatever) and demanding to bring end to abortion because God said so folks. I don’t think feelings can disappear suddenly.
Only sociopaths are fully of profit above all mentality. Many times this mentality brings horrible results for all, like using all possible tricks to prevent regulations for public safety: poisoning / making ill with cancer one’s workers for profit, poisoning water and air for profit, etc. Those are RL examples, people, and they make my blood boil, not think “if only everybody was like that…”
LikeLike
That’s the main problem with capitalism profit-motive.
LikeLike
“Whether the discrimination is based on sex, race, religion, appearance, or country, the profit-motive penalizes anyone who refuses to employ or supply some one else on a discriminatory basis.”
That’s utterly false. Profit motive is not necessary for that. In a free market, the “non-debt motive” is sufficient because if your revenues are too much inferior to your costs because there are too much unqualified workers, your organization will close. Government organizations don’t have this motive.
LikeLike
oups, guess i need to re-read SdB.
and Nancy Friday .
and Luce Irigaray . and . and .
and watch/contemplate some Vandana Shiva .
…
actually, your post got me thinking/food-for-thought.
off-note : i feel confused. somebody tell a joke.
(cited from the movie moonstruck)
indeedly “question everything”.
thx for making me ponder.
LikeLike
I really dislike Luce Irigaray.
LikeLike
This post is bizarre. I don’t want to accuse you of anything, but it doesn’t seem like you understand very well how much capitalism attacks women, both in the Second and Third Worlds and in our societies. Medieval societies actually had much blurrier gender lines than early capitalism did. Your historical perspective is confused.
LikeLike
Totally love it when men try to educate me on which system benefits me as a woman and tell me how my feminism is all confused and how I don’t understand things. Sure, a little woman like me, how can I possibly understand.
LikeLike
I actually agree with you on that point; I don’t think men should be involved with feminism. But when you make a claim that women are better treated under capitalism than in other kinds of societies, you’re making a factual claim. Gender has nothing to do with that.
LikeLike
I never made such a point at all. Also, I couldn’t have made a claim ” that women are better treated under capitalism than in other kinds of societies”. Treated by whom exactly? Since when is “capitalism” a “kind of society”?
It’s always a good idea to read a text before responding to it. You first assign really strange claims to me and then berate me for making them. Even though I never did make them.
LikeLike
Huh. I could have sworn you said this:
“In capitalism, money becomes the decisive factor. As a result, the smaller size and the lesser physical strength of women becomes completely irrelevant. The liberatory potential of this is huge.
In a similar way, capitalism frees women from the dependence on the birth cycle…
It is no coincidence that feminism and capitalism developed at the same time and at a similar pace. If the capitalism hadn’t come into existence, I am convinced that we would still see the feudal society where women had to be hidden and closely guarded or be raped routinely.”
But since you say you didn’t, never mind then. I must have made it all up. Sorry for wasting your time.
LikeLike
Now you have quoted me correctly. Surely, you can see the difference between what I said and “women are better treated under capitalism than in other kinds of societies.” The next step for you would be to address the claims from this statement that you disagree with.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I am way too dumb to talk to you apparently.
LikeLike