Capitalism vs Feminism
- helenabrown26
- May 14, 2024
- 4 min read
Updated: May 24, 2024
In this blog, I aim to describe how capitalism is built against women, for example, gendered division of labour, unequal pay, and exploitation of reproductive labour. We’ll envision a world free from its constraints, where all individuals can thrive.
'Feminism for the 99%', is a concept by Feminist writer Nancy Fraser, which advocates for a more inclusive and radical approach to feminism that addresses not only gender inequality but also economic and social injustice. This idea recognizes that mainstream feminism tends to focus on issues that mainly affect middle-class white women, neglecting intersecting oppression faced by marginalized women, such as those from working-class backgrounds, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ communities.
Fraser suggests a world without capitalism would be 'a just world whose wealth and natural resources are shared by all, and where equality and freedom are premises, not aspirations' (Fraser, 2019). Fraser describes that some feminists want 'equal opportunity domination', For example, she explains, “the social whole is shared equally by ruling-class men and women”(Fraser, 2019), affirming the idea that achieving gender equality among ruling-class individuals, both men and women, would lead to a more equal society; reflecting a limited understanding of equality. This overlooks the broader social and economic inequalities that shape and perpetuate power imbalances beyond gender alone.
Fraser rejects the Sheryl Sandberg feminists, or the ''lean in’ dogma and the feminism of the 1 percent' (Fraser, 2019). This brand of feminism, popularised by Sandberg’s book 'Lean In', focuses on individual empowerment and advancement in the corporate world. It emphasizes strategies for women to navigate and succeed in male-dominated spaces, advocating for self-promotion, assertiveness, and career ambition. This ultimately reinforces systems where there is a dominant 'Ruling Class' and fails to challenge the patriarchy and capitalism.
The aspiration to become a 'girl boss' or reach the pinnacle of success like a CEO is often framed as a symbol of feminist achievement and progress. However, 'A few more women may be MPs or CEOs, but three times as many young women are locked into low-paid jobs than were 20 years ago' (Foster, 2013). This puts it perfectly, while advancements in women’s representation in high-profile jobs may be celebrated as signs of progress, they do not necessarily mean improvements to the lives of all women. Liberal feminism labels the corporate working world as underrepresented for women and there is a need to 'diversify' it. As Fraser put it 'everyone else remains stuck in the basement' (Fraser, 2019). However, to ‘break glass ceilings’ there will always be those less fortunate to 'lean on' so that the few at the top can 'lean in' (Fraser, 2019).
Moreover, the focus on individual achievement and success may divert attention and resources away from collective efforts to challenge capitalism. This is not to say that women should not aim to achieve or aspire to be in high-paid roles, but to make change for the less fortunate groups of women, it’s important to tackle the issues and adopt a more intersectional approach. While achieving success within capitalism may be celebrated as a form of feminist empowerment, it's important to recognise the limitations of this approach and work towards more radical forms of feminism that challenge the root cause of sexism and misogyny. Rather than responding to anti-feminism with 'I can prove I can do it, and once I do, you will stop being sexist towards me', a more effective approach is to question the underlying assumptions behind the sexism itself. Instead, we should ask, 'Why do you think I can’t do it in the first place' This reframing again, shifts the focus of individual ability to 'girl boss' within existing patriarchal structures to interrogate the systemic biases that perpetuate gender inequality.
Fraser highlights the limitations of liberal feminism in addressing the 2016 election where Hillary Clinton was widely anticipated as a milestone for women’s representation in politics. As the first female major-party nominee for president, Clinton’s campaign was seen by many as a symbol of progress for gender equality. However, her candidacy also exposed deep division within feminist groups. For example, as Fraser describes, 'liberal feminism met its Waterloo in the us presidential election of 2016 when the much-ballyhooed candidacy of Hillary Clinton failed to excite women voters' (Fraser, 2019). Clinton’s defeat highlighted the limitations of liberal feminism in addressing the needs and concerns of all women, particularly those from marginalized working-class backgrounds. highlighting the diverse needs and concerns of women across different socio-economic situations.
In conclusion, the relationship between feminism and capitalism underscored the need for a nuanced approach towards feminism and gender equality. Critiquing the limitations of liberal feminism and advocating for a more radical and intersectional approach will see feminism and equality progressing further. Through collective action and solidarity, we can work towards building a more equal society.
References
Arruzza, C., Bhattacharya, T. and Fraser, N. (2019) Feminism for the 99 percent : a manifesto. London: Verso.
Crispin, Jessa. “Hillary Clinton Is Still Trying to Sell Herself as a Feminist Icon. Don’t Buy It | Jessa Crispin.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 Jan. 2020,
Foster, d (2013) “why corporate feminism is convenient for capitalism” the guardian
Fraser, N. Arruzza, C. Bhattacharya, T "feminism for the 99%: a manifesto" verso, London
Learning Resources
youtube videos
How Capitalism destroys Feminism
learn about intersectional Feminism
Liberal Feminism
reading
"Marxism and intersectionality race, gender, class and sexuality under contemporary capitalism" Ashley j Bohrer (2019)
"feminism for the 99%" nancy fraser (2011)
"deviations: a Gayle Rubin reader" Gayle Rubin (2012)
Comments