Is feminist ideology compatible with capitalism?

Alopex

A capitalist society ensures that businesses will use all means necessary to make profit. otherwise they will not survive in a market driven economy.

this means women will be objectified in advertising because sex sells. objectifying men doesn't sell to near the same extent. i am sick to my back teeth of a buxom 20 year old female being the major focus of so many advertisements. even in sport the other night i saw a female volleyball event surrounded by cheerleaders wearing underwear only slightly bigger than a thong

this means women will not be taken as seriously because people see their worth in how good they look and not in intellectual terms.

therefore women will be less likely to rise to top positions in business and government(this consistently happens in today's world)

i have noticed women in socialist organisations do not talk about feminism very much. it is as if feminist ideals are taken for granted in these organisations. they are often against positive discrimination citing it is another form of discrimination. their rhetoric is also anti-commercialism rather than anti-male

these organisations are always vehemently pro-equality and anti-sexism/anti rascism/anti homophobia etc. their membership is primarily made up of young men who also share these views.

therefore i am wondering if feminism in a capitalist world is a doomed effort. it is often observed when women rise to positions of power individually they become part of the patriarchy and show favoritism to men

taking away the free market would mean showing a woman in skimpy clothes would no longer be of commercial benefit. and women might start being seen as intellectual equals

rainbow kirby

Moved to Humanities.

RedXIV

In a truly capitalist state? No, I don't think feminism and its associated ideals would flourish as the basic premise of capitalism is that ANY advantage should and would be exploited for commercial gain. This would undoubtedly spread through more than just sexism, but ageism, racism and all the other -isms would be introduced again. We don't live in a truly capitalist state and perhaps we should be grateful for that.

In saying that, in a true capitalist state, the intelligent and hardworking would do well so it shouldn't matter what a woman looks like as long as she is capable of turning a profit, she will be successful.

The thing about this though is that sex sells. And that's what capitalism is interested in. And as such, markets aimed at men will have scantily clad women and markets aimed at women will have scantily clad men. Because this is proven as one of the most effective marketing techniques in the world. It hits our primal instincts.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm always really jealous of the guys in the diet coke ads (except the puppet, I reckon I may have an edge over him)

gargleblaster

I think blaming capitalism is a cop out. Companies used to use racist images to sell, but then society (for the most part) decided that racism was wrong, so the practice ended.

It's sadly not so easy to convey the idea that sexism is wrong. It seems impossible for some to understand the difference between using sexy women to sell lingerie and using sexy women to sell sports equipment, tools, cars, etc.

Eventually, I would hope that women themselves would manage to work out the difference between participation in something that legitimately expresses their sexuality and something that is basically the equivalent of a female Stepin Fetchit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jack B. Badd

Alopex wrote: »

i have noticed women in socialist organisations do not talk about feminism very much. it is as if feminist ideals are taken for granted in these organisations. they are often against positive discrimination citing it is another form of discrimination. their rhetoric is also anti-commercialism rather than anti-male

these organisations are always vehemently pro-equality and anti-sexism/anti rascism/anti homophobia etc. their membership is primarily made up of young men who also share these views.

I'm a bit confused as to how this reference relates to your argument. Are you saying that socialist organisations ignore feminism or that they incorporate it to the extent that it is taken for granted by their members that is part of their mission statement (for want of a better phrase)?

How do positive discrimination and an anti-male attitude (or lack thereof) relate to socialism? And how does perceived predominantly male membership of socialist groups relate to feminism (assuming the stance that feminists are not exclusively female)?

Could you clarify this part of your argument? Many thanks.

Alopex

RedXIV wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the difference is that objectifying men does not sell nearly as well as objectifying women. therefore objectifying women is far more prevalent and I believe this has an effect on attitudes to female worth (from both sexes)

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

indeed this is an interesting way of looking at it. do you know if similar patterns take place in other countries. perhaps the tables will turn iv the coming years.

i think i am somewhat biased because i recently finished work in a department of 50 people. 45 out of 50 were female. though the head of the department was male. 2 out of 3 of the sub department heads were male. i understand that is a sample of one but i believe similar patterns are observed in schoolteaching

The fact that some model might pose topless on Page 3 to sell newspapers, or some busty 20-year-old might appear in a TV commercial, does not negate the significant intellectual and professional achievements of other women.

i fundamentally disagree here. i think the constant use of busty women in advertising could very well have an effect on society's attitude toward women

An ever-increasing number of women are attaining high-level positions in the corporate world. Admittedly, the percentage of women in the Dáil is still disappointing, but if women want to see other women in government, surely all they have to do is vote for them. Women make up 50 percent of the electorate, after all.

admittedly i don't know the statistics on the corporate world or if any have been conducted.

You've set up a failsafe argument there. If a woman doesn't rise to a position of power, that just proves how oppressed she is. If she does rise to a position of power, she becomes part of the problem (i.e., the patriarchy).

no i was not saying she automatically becomes part of the problem. that would be a ridiculous comment. i was saying that it is often observed that is the case. feminists have a term "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women" for this reason

You might want to look at the treatment of women in non-market societies before you jump to conclusions about how wonderful it will be once you get rid of capitalism.

i am not actually trying to push a socialist agenda. even if it did solve the sexual equality issues it has too many downsides to be worth it (IMO)

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to how this reference relates to your argument. Are you saying that socialist organisations ignore feminism or that they incorporate it to the extent that it is taken for granted by their members that is part of their mission statement (for want of a better phrase)?

this bit here in bold is what i mean

How do positive discrimination and an anti-male attitude (or lack thereof) relate to socialism? And how does perceived predominantly male membership of socialist groups relate to feminism (assuming the stance that feminists are not exclusively female)?

Could you clarify this part of your argument? Many thanks.

Well positive discrimination is a policy many feminists aspire too(erroneously in my opinion). I was arguing the attitudes you find among socialists are more fundamentally pro-equality. Therefore i believe socialism is more compatible with what feminism should really be about and positive discrimination is more an attempt to redress issues rooted from capitalism.

the predominantly male comment was that i think it odd they are predominantly male when they are so open to feminist ideals without even trying.

Alopex

gargleblaster wrote: »

I think blaming capitalism is a cop out. Companies used to use racist images to sell, but then society (for the most part) decided that racism was wrong, so the practice ended.

the images are not sexist. they objectify women. there is a huge distinction there. sexism is discrimination based on gender like racism is on race.

It's sadly not so easy to convey the idea that sexism is wrong. It seems impossible for some to understand the difference between using sexy women to sell lingerie and using sexy women to sell sports equipment, tools, cars, etc.

Eventually, I would hope that women themselves would manage to work out the difference between participation in something that legitimately expresses their sexuality and something that is basically the equivalent of a female Stepin Fetchit.

there will always be some(enough to continue the process) who participate for some easy cash

gargleblaster

Alopex wrote: »

the images are not sexist. they objectify women. there is a huge distinction there. sexism is discrimination based on gender like racism is on race.

You appear to be using a different definition of sexism than most feminists. I would obviously count myself among those who do consider objectification to be sexist.

Ostrom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not sure this is a fair representation; female average industrial wage levels consistently fall short of males. The achievements you mention are poor measures of equality if such outcomes fail to translate into similar material rewards across the lifecourse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ostrom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This skew merely represents womens participation in part-time employment.

When those figures are decomposed further by occupational category the wage inequality remains. The 2007 National Employment Survey recorded parity (even excess) in part-time retail and administration earnings, but across part-time education and health, and full-time retail, finance, education and administration categories, womens' earnings are at 82-86% of those of males (hourly earnings)*.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For the moment, perhaps; there is little reason to expect (short of another demographic transition) that this current cohort will not experience the same life-course reductions. (Comparative studies are typically sketchy on the effects of welfare/policy intervention vs. proactive wage-setting). This esteem counts for nothing unless provisions such as gender-balanced leave entitlements and selection bias are addressed.

I do hope you are proven correct however.

*From CSO database direct

Sleepy

Your initial premise is flawed.

It assumes that the best thing a woman has to generate wealth is her looks. This simply isn't true. Very few of the world's most wealthy women have become so through their looks. JK Rowling has made billions out of her imagination, Oprah through her abilities as a presenter, Margaret Whitman through eBay, Marissa Mayer through Google.

The power of advertising is largely perception, the idea that incorporating sex into advertising actually "sells" is still totally unproven too btw.

Alopex

gargleblaster wrote: »

You appear to be using a different definition of sexism than most feminists. I would obviously count myself among those who do consider objectification to be sexist.

well you are incorrect. It is discrimination based on gender. Whilst people who happily objectify women are highly likely to be sexist there is still a huge distinction.

irishh_bob

Alopex wrote: »

the difference is that objectifying men does not sell nearly as well as objectifying women. therefore objectifying women is far more prevalent and I believe this has an effect on attitudes to female worth (from both sexes)




indeed this is an interesting way of looking at it. do you know if similar patterns take place in other countries. perhaps the tables will turn iv the coming years.

i think i am somewhat biased because i recently finished work in a department of 50 people. 45 out of 50 were female. though the head of the department was male. 2 out of 3 of the sub department heads were male. i understand that is a sample of one but i believe similar patterns are observed in schoolteaching



i fundamentally disagree here. i think the constant use of busty women in advertising could very well have an effect on society's attitude toward women



admittedly i don't know the statistics on the corporate world or if any have been conducted.



no i was not saying she automatically becomes part of the problem. that would be a ridiculous comment. i was saying that it is often observed that is the case. feminists have a term "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women" for this reason



i am not actually trying to push a socialist agenda. even if it did solve the sexual equality issues it has too many downsides to be worth it (IMO)



this bit here in bold is what i mean



Well positive discrimination is a policy many feminists aspire too(erroneously in my opinion). I was arguing the attitudes you find among socialists are more fundamentally pro-equality. Therefore i believe socialism is more compatible with what feminism should really be about and positive discrimination is more an attempt to redress issues rooted from capitalism.

the predominantly male comment was that i think it odd they are predominantly male when they are so open to feminist ideals without even trying.

feminism isnt about equality , feminism is about ensuring that women always emerge on top in any given scenario , when is the last time you heard the national womens council complaining about the fact that a 15 year old boy can be prosecuted for having sex with a 14 year old girl yet the law is different for a 15 year old girl when it comes to a boy of 14

gargleblaster

Alopex wrote: »

well you are incorrect.

Simply asserting it as if it was a fact does not make it a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Objectification

It is argued that sexual objectification is a form of sexism. Some countries, such as Norway and Denmark, have laws against sexual objectification in advertising. Nudity itself is not banned, and nude people can be used to advertise a product, but only if they are relevant to what is being advertised. Sol Olving, head of Norway's Kreativt Forum, an association of the country's top advertising agencies explained: "You could have a naked person advertising shower gel or a cream, but not a woman in a bikini draped across a car."[34]

Zombrex

Alopex wrote: »

A capitalist society ensures that businesses will use all means necessary to make profit. otherwise they will not survive in a market driven economy.

this means women will be objectified in advertising because sex sells. objectifying men doesn't sell to near the same extent. i am sick to my back teeth of a buxom 20 year old female being the major focus of so many advertisements. even in sport the other night i saw a female volleyball event surrounded by cheerleaders wearing underwear only slightly bigger than a thong

this means women will not be taken as seriously because people see their worth in how good they look and not in intellectual terms.

Er, why does it mean this?

When have you ever looked at a ridiculously handsome male actor in a TV commersial and thought "This ad makes me want to take him seriously, intellecturally"




Does that mean you don't think of men as intellectual creatures? I doubt it.

Alopex

gargleblaster wrote: »

Simply asserting it as if it was a fact does not make it a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Sexism is simply discrimination based on gender. the waters shouldn't be muddied by adding objectification into it.

I have seen some clowns say criminalising abortion is sexism because it tells women what they can't do with their bodies.

That could only be sexism if men could have babies and were allowed abortions.

Its a similar thing here. Its objectification and completely wrong in my opinion - though that doesn't make it fit the definition of sexism

The Corinthian

Alopex wrote: »

therefore i am wondering if feminism in a capitalist world is a doomed effort. it is often observed when women rise to positions of power individually they become part of the patriarchy and show favoritism to men

The only prejudice that Capitalism has is for profit. It really doen't care what colour you are, gender, sexual orientation, whatever. It just wants to make money.

Car insurance companies will seek to charge men more - does that make them sexist against men? No, it makes them money.

And certainly women discriminate against other women when they rise to positions of power individually - but it's not so much to do with patriarchy as the bottom line. Women take time out to become mothers, while men still overwhelmingly concentrate on the 'provider' role in a family. As such if you're going to hire either a man or a woman of equal ability, who will you choose? The one who's more likely to cut down on work (or leave it altogether) to start a family or the one who'll work harder because they have to support their family?

So gender really is irrelevant to Capitalism. In reality, Capitalism loves Feminism; it creates a wider labour pool (driving down resource costs) and increases the size of the consumer market - women with incomes spend money on stuff that makes profits. Indeed, who actually buys most of these products that objectify or stereotype women? Last time I checked, men aren't big buyers of Cosmo.

Alopex

irishh_bob wrote: »

feminism isnt about equality , feminism is about ensuring that women always emerge on top in any given scenario , when is the last time you heard the national womens council complaining about the fact that a 15 year old boy can be prosecuted for having sex with a 14 year old girl yet the law is different for a 15 year old girl when it comes to a boy of 14

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

irishh_bob

Alopex wrote: »

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

feminists are no different from any other lobby group , they are not human rights activists , they are driven by idealogy and politics

Sleepy

Alopex wrote: »

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

An organisation which strives for equality, strives for it for all, not just for one group of society.

The Corinthian

Alopex wrote: »

i agree that is often the case with feminism. the post was from a hypothetical position talking of feminism which actually does strive for equality for women.

That's a bit like suggesting that a business owners association or trade union both strive for equality between workers and business owners.

Partisan organizations can strive towards equality, but only when the group they represent are in the disadvantaged position - this is because they ultimately represent that group, not equality, and it is only at such times that the two agendas are aligned. When not aligned and they have to choose between equality and the group they represent, they will always choose the latter.

This can easily be demonstrated in Feminism where it comes to areas where women have an advantage over men - most notably in family law. At best they are largely silent, perhaps releasing a few positive sound-bytes on such topics, or will even promote some superficial rights that also benefit women. At worst they can be hostile towards any action that may dilute the rights (or privileges) of the group they represent, and this too is often seen.

Ultimately Feminism, by definition, cannot be about equality because it is partisan. If it was it would strive for equality for people, not women.

gargleblaster

Can anyone name any of these groups which strive for equality for all? We've had centuries of people stiving for equality. It took decades to get rid of slavery (in the countries where it is no longer practiced), decades more for women to be able to vote and own property, etc.

Which groups sought to redress all these issues back when it wasn't socially acceptable to do so? Are there any now?

I find it disturbing that what used to be the sole province of racists (the 'they're not for equality, because what about white people?' mantra in response to groups like the NAACP) has now become mainstream, and aimed at feminists.

prinz

Alopex wrote: »

i have noticed women in socialist organisations do not talk about feminism very much. it is as if feminist ideals are taken for granted in these organisations. they are often against positive discrimination citing it is another form of discrimination.

They often do. They also tend to push feminism to an extreme and actually encourage a backlash against women who don't subscribe to their own idealised version of what a woman should be/act/think etc.

Feminism can also be good for capitalism. Feminists look for more women in the workforce..... good news for capitalists, big increase in the pool of available labour results in lower wages for all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

prinz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, win win all round. I hadn't paid full attention to The Corinthian had written, although I'd question the true value/amount of an excess of disposable income, when you factor in the costs of running two cars for example, childcare etc.

The Corinthian

prinz wrote: »

although I'd question the true value/amount of an excess of disposable income, when you factor in the costs of running two cars for example, childcare etc.

That's actually kind of the point - in economic terms it's all consumption. The cost of running two cars, childcare etc is all money spent on goods and services. They drive the wheels of Capitalism just as much as spending money on luxury goods.

Any society that encourages a maximization of consumption is good for profit. The traditional family unit doesn't, as it is more efficient with it's resources - shared domicile, goods are bought in bulk at a cheaper rate, as only one person is required to earn money, the others can turn to tasks that otherwise they would have to pay others to do (childcare, housework, etc).

Break them up into individuals and each has to spend separate (and aggregately more) amounts on accommodation, food, services, etc. To allow this, they have to each earn a living, thus creating a larger labour pool (which in turn is needed to handle the increased demand - although you're going into decreasing marginal utility territory there).

Overall, the emancipation of women was a godsend for Capitalism, which is reflected in the unprecedented expansion of the World economy in the last century.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote: »

An organisation which strives for equality, strives for it for all, not just for one group of society.

Lots of feminists strive for equality for all, they simply focus their time on those with more challenges to achieve this.

For example I've a friend who works for a charity that helps poor urban kids in Detroit (and more recently Seattle) with their education.

The idea that she doesn't care about rich kids getting a proper education would, I'm sure, be rather insulting to her. It isn't that she doesn't care, it is that she feels her time is best spend helping poor urban kids.

Just because someone strives to help women gain equality does not mean they do not care about the rights of others. But it would be silly to pretend all people face exactly the same challenges when attempting to exercise those rights. If someone said my friend is "silent" on plans to introduce say a special needs teacher in Gross Pointe people here would no doubt think that is stupid. Why would my friend comment on such an activity, it is out side of the area she works in.

Yet when feminists organisations don't put their time and energy behind male issues people scream hypocracy. This seems more about feminist backlash than any genuine greivence with feminists groups.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

Lots of feminists strive for equality for all, they simply focus their time on those with more challenges to achieve this.

At this stage it is difficult to deny that men increasingly face significant discriminated than women, so your argument does not really hold, unless it is by sheer coincidence that they can only find "more challenges" on the one side.

The idea that she doesn't care about rich kids getting a proper education would, I'm sure, be rather insulting to her. It isn't that she doesn't care, it is that she feels her time is best spend helping poor urban kids.

Except men aren't the 'rich kids' anymore.

Just because someone strives to help women gain equality does not mean they do not care about the rights of others.

It is of they ignore or even act against the rights of others as they typically do with men's rights.

Yet when feminists organisations don't put their time and energy behind male issues people scream hypocracy. This seems more about feminist backlash than any genuine greivence with feminists groups.

It is hypocrisy if they claim to be representing equality. To do so they would need to represent both and not simply one side - and they don't.

Sleepy

Is it "feminist backlash" to suggest that, in the context of Ireland and other non-third world countries at least, feminism has run it's course and that society would be better served by it's replacement with an "Egalitarian Movement"?

I've suggested such things before on this forum and believe such a movement would have significant benefits of scale over the myriad of lobby groups that currently exist and, while not legally trained, can only assume that legislation which ensured "equality of all persons" would be simpler to draft that legislation that allows blatant discrimination (such as current age-of-consent laws in Ireland).