There is a very interesting article by Gaiutra Bahadur titled “India’s Missing Women” in this week’s issue of The Nation. The article demonstrates the point that I’ve been making forever. Namely, that capitalism is a pre-condition of feminism. Capitalism is the greatest hope of women world over for a life of dignity, independence, achievement, and freedom. The linked article discusses the liberation brought by capitalism to the women of India and the backlash against their newfound freedom.
It’s good to see The Nation going back to doing good, solid journalism for a change.
Clarissa's Blog 
Capitalism allows women an attempt to find freedom, just like jumping on a leaky life raft is better than staying on a definitely sinking ship. Perhaps land is close by and perhaps the ocean currents will allow a high proportion of people to be saved. One can never know.
LikeLike
Market capitalism is far from a perfect system, but in comparison to the others, it is the system that functions the least badly. Women have far more opportunity in a market-capitalism society than they do in the alternative societies.
LikeLike
Exactly. And if even the progressive magazine like The Nation recognizes it, there’s nothing to argue about.
LikeLike
To come up with such a definite assertion, you must have crunched a huge amount of data, both statistical and qualitative.
LikeLike
You make it sound like it is an up-for-debate issue as to whether there is any system better than market capitalism. There isn’t. That whole experiment was tried already. The only alternatives to market capitalism are socialism and things like feudalism and slavery. There is no system that provides the kind of freedom that market capitalism allows for, the ability for one to make as much wealth as they can and achieve their dreams doing as they wish.
LikeLike
“Capitalism = Feminism” is a title I’d expect to see on a Republican site 😀
LikeLike
No, they would think it’s an insult to capitalism. 🙂
LikeLike
Free market is a pre-condition of feminism, not state capitalism.
LikeLike
I don’t think this article proves your assertions. If anything it demonstrates how existing misogyny co-exists quite nicely with capitalism.
1. Feminists in India existed long before 1991, when they liberalized the economy, so you’re wrong about that.
2. Slavery existed and exists quite well within several economic systems, all the way from agricultural based, to command economies, to capitalist ones, so to assert “type of economic system=personal freedom for women” is nonsense.
3. Lists of “best countries for women” do not perfectly overlap with “most capitalistic countries” in the world. Sweden is quasi-socialist and consistently ranks at the top of lists of “best countries for women”. The UAE and Japan are highly developed capitalist countries that are wealthy but they are highly misogynistic.
4. The U.S. has been a capitalistic country since 1776. Women have worked since this country’s founding. If you’re going to argue “opportunity to earn money” =”freedom”=”rebalancing of rights”, it doesn’t necessarily happen.
This list of financial rights milestones proves that capitalism exists quite well women’s financial freedoms.. I can make all the money in the world, but it means nothing if I can’t control it.
LikeLike
I botched the link for the financial milestones:Until 1981, it was legal in Louisiana for a husband to have total unilateral control over jointly owned property, like your house
LikeLike
Capitalism makes physical strength and basic physiology irrelevant to power. And as Simone de Beauvoir proved, this was precisely the reason for female subjection.
LikeLike
“Capitalism makes physical strength and basic physiology irrelevant to power.”
I don’t quite agree. Haven’t we had countries and provinces ruled by queens in the past? Were those queens physically dominating?
And if physical strength was so critical to holding power, then surely people would realize that they clearly have a physical advantage with their superior numbers. You really think holding power over someone is as simple as being physically stronger than them?
LikeLike
Just like a black president doesn’t prove that a country stopped being racist, the existence of a queen doesn’t do anything for the general population of women.
LikeLike
The technologies are responsible for the weakening of the nation state are also responsible for making physical strength and basic physiology irrelevant to power. As is the invention of the pulley, the lever. It still doesn’t explain all of the Objectivist heroes dominating Dagny Taggart because she was far better at capitalism than either of those heroes. p
LikeLike
The technology and capitalism go hand in hand. Capital will support whatever social trends promote its growth. That is all capital cares about: constantly accelerating growth. Capital needs everybody in the workforce and working for a capitalist because this is the only way of getting added value from people. Capital also needs technology because it’s good for the growth.
LikeLike
Sweden is a capitalist country. Everything else is right-wing propaganda. Socialism is governmental ownership over means of production. It should not be confused with social programs. USSR was socialist in the true sense of the word, yet there were hardly any social assistance programs.
LikeLike
Yes, countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc…often get labeled by the right-wing as “socialist” but what they really are is a form of social democracy, which involves market capitalism with a sizeable social welfare state. They oftentimes will involve more government control over the economy than say in a nation like the United States, but they are still a form of market capitalism.
LikeLike
Kyle: exactly. Sweden is a capitalist country with high social stratification. I would not idealize it the way many people do as some sort of paradise.
LikeLike
In terms of feminism, Scandinavian countries are undergoing an enormous backlash, with persecution of sex workers, pornography, etc. there was a brief moment when it was ahead of the US in feminist achievements but that is all being eroded as we speak.
LikeLike
When I visited my grandparents as a kid, you could not channel surf because there were only two or three channels run by the government. You could not drink a Coca Cola; you drank a Thums Up or a Gold Spot which were owned by Indian companies but not the Indian government. Shopping for cars was absurd as everyone that could buy a car bought an Ambassador, which was made by an Indian company not owned by the government. There were commercials on tv for products, and my mom would shop for all kinds of things before we went to India for our relatives, and then spend much of her trip shopping while in India for things (mostly clothing) to take back.
LikeLike
Kyle: Claiming a prosperous social democracy with a sizeable welfare state and market capitalism tends to be more feminist is different than just proclaiming “capitalism =feminism”.
Notice that this is an economic system modified by a political system.
Anyways, I think we’re in a period of reactionary backlash worldwide. 😦
LikeLike