Why Mainstream Feminism is Corporate Feminism

I have deleted the link to the liberals’ hate list (originally located on my last post) after a woman featured on the list stated that the link should not be shared. My blog is not very popular at the moment so I doubt I was generating much views for the hateful (how ironic) liberals, but I wish to respect the wishes of women targeted by the site. Feel free to share links to my blog on friendly sites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction 

This post will add to the economics-related arguments I made in the last post. The term “mainstream feminism” in the title is merely another way of saying “liberal feminism”, since the tenants of liberal feminism are more in line with the status quo than those of radical feminism. The use of the word “corporate” in place of “bourgeois” was also a way of avoiding repetition.

Thus this article can be thought of as the conclusion to a three part discussion of how race and class are related to feminism, which began with this article. The current article will mostly focus on how liberal feminism favours those with more wealth and excludes women who have not managed to pull themselves up by their bra straps.

1. It is Opposed to “Classism” rather than Class Divisions

While radical leftists argue for the abolition of all class divisions and all power inequalities, liberal feminists advocate for an end to “classism”. In a previous post I stated that the term does not adequately describe why capitalism is harmful or oppressive. I also said that I would include a critique of the term “classism” in a future post. Well, here it is.

If I understand liberish correctly, the term “classism” refers to prejudices which are based on economic class. The first problem with this term is that, when defined in such a way, it implies that the oppressed masses are not allowed to have negative feelings towards the wealthy capitalists who rule over them, but I am going to be charitable and assume that “classism” refers mostly to the snobbish attitudes of rich people towards poor people. Even so, the term is a weak critique of capitalism, because it assumes that social disapproval is the worst problem faced by poor people. The term fails to condemn poverty itself. In fact liberals often assume that labelling a particular group as “exploited” or “victims” is itself a form of prejudice (they apply this reasoning to prostituted women, women who conform to femininity and people with disabilities.) Thus ideologies which advocate for the abolition of classes (e.g. socialism, communism and anarchism) would have to be deemed “classist” by liberals.

The term “classism” implies that poverty is yet another “empowering choice” that people make and that we should stop disapproving of those who make it. In reality, poverty is rarely a choice and even if it were it is still generally harmful to people’s physical and emotional wellbeing. Furthermore, the division of society into classes creates a sitution in which workers and poor people have to subordinate themselves to governments and corporations and have  little control over what is produced within their society and how it is distributed. Thus they are unable to make decisions about how energy is produced, what kind of food is available to them, what conditions people should labour under and whether or not children should be taught that boys ought to be violent and dominating, while girls ought to be submissive and obsess over their physical appearances.

Those who truly value liberty, equality and democracy and want the problems discussed above to be solved should favour an end to class divisions, not just an end to “classism”. This is not to say that poor and working class people do not experience prejudice, nor do I wish to imply that hateful feelings towards such people are not a problem. What I oppose is the notion that prejudice is the only problem that lower class people face and the assumption that class divisions are just a natural part of how the world is and yet another neutral identity that people should embrace and feel pride in, rather than a brutal hierarchy which needs to be abolished.

2. It Promotes Expensive Means of “Empowerment” 

Liberal feminists believe that “empowerment” (as they call it) mostly comes, not from banding together to form a political movement which takes to the street and demands change, but from consuming products that radical feminists have been criticising since the 1960s, including make-up, high heels and even breast implants, along with other forms of plastic surgery. This liberal path to empowerment is not one which poorer women can follow, unless they go into debt or forego spending money on more important things (like food, rent and healthcare.)

Breast implants alone cost between 10,000 – 15,000 Australian dollars and that’s not even including the costs of regular checkups or any corrective surgeries which may be needed if the original surgery goes wrong. One could buy a new car with that amount of money or pay for half of a university degree (at least until Tony Abbot’s policies raise the price of tertiary education to multiple times its current cost) or buy between 200 and 300 copies of the latest radical feminist literature. Any of those options would be a better use of one’s money, yes, even the last one.

The economic cost of make-up and fancy clothes may seem trivial by comparison. However, since fashions are constantly changing and make-up is used regularly, the total cost of such prettification accumulates over time. Throughout their lives, most women will spend thousands of dollars on such methods of prettification. The only women that are actually empowered by such practices, and the viewpoints that justify their use, are those few who are part of the capitalist class and profit from the sale of these products. Most women do not gain more social or political power by consuming such products and thus are not truly empowered by them.

The type of “sexual liberation” and “sexual subversion” advocated by liberals can also be expensive. In my view, a genuinely subversive sexuality would be one which challenges the belief that sexiness consists of one person dominating another. Instead the liberal version of “sexual subversion” reinforces this belief through the use of whips, chains and nipple torture devices. Obviously, these objects are not naturally part of either male or female bodies. They must be manufactured and are thus a source of profit for businesses. If there ever was a time when BDSM was a threat to capitalism, it is long over. Now companies that sell BDSM equipment are generating additional profit due to the success of Fifty Shades of Grey and the growing popularity of BDSM practices.
-
Within walking distance of my home, sits a BDSM sex shop named after an aristocrat (that tells me more than I need to know about which class the BDSM community admires.) I will not reveal the actual name of the shop or the website I used to learn about its products lest I generate more publicity and hence income for it. I will tell you that a whip from that place will cost you 80 dollars (in US money.) A complete set of restraints costs 160 dollars. The “deluxe” set costs 245 dollars. Dressing up like a sexualised Hitler costs 450 dollar. Showing complete disrespect for survivors of the Holocaust and their families is probably priceless in the owners’ minds. 

In case you think the Nazi costumes and the rib crushing corsets (which cost even more than the Hitler costume) are optional, BDSM events usually have dress codes which mandate that attendants turn up in BDSM-related outfits. One is not required to dress like a fascist, but turn up wearing ordinary clothes with two digit price tags and they will kick you out for being too “vanilla-looking.” They might as well stick a “no Jews or poor people allowed” sign above the doors to their events.

3. It Celebrates the Rich and Successful

When trying to determine whether a piece of media is “feminist” or not, liberals look for “strong female characters” or strong real-life individuals who overcome social barriers to become successful. They believe that individual success stories, whether real or fictional, will inspire other individuals who watch them to live out their own American Dreams. This notion of female empowerment is clearly very capitalistic and in line with the dominant narratives about how the goal of the individual should be to advance their own status in a hierarchical world. The individual empowerment narrative is used to defend hierarchial orders by asserting that they pose no real harm and that anyone can overcome them, unless of course they are “weak” or “not inspired enough”.  

Among the women who are celebrated by liberal feminists for being “inspiring” are celebrities who have the superficial appearance of being empowered, such as Pink, Lilly Allen, Katy Perry and most of all Beyoncé. To my knowledge none of these women have sung about the need for women to form a movement to fight oppression and Katy Perry has explicitly distanced herself from feminism in her interviews (which does not really bother me because women who know nothing about feminism have no right to claim they represent it) and continues to have little understanding of what it means.

These “empowered” female celebrities sing about their personal success and not about the need for women as a group to fight against oppressive social structures. Songs such as “Stupid Girls” by Pink and “Hard out Here” by Lilly Allen attack less empowered women for supposedly being stupid, the former even goes so far as to mock women suffering from eating disorders. Then you have the song “Independent Women” by Beyoncé, which does not explicitly attack anyone, but which implies that women who are strong, independent and, most of all, rich, belong to some superior breed of women and that women who are not making their own money (and lots of it) do not. In fact the importance of an individual becoming rich or powerful or both, is a common theme in these supposedly “feminist” songs and liberals who claim they are “anti-capitalist” eat it right up.

The celebration of rich, successful individuals is taken to extremes in the case of “empowered sex workers”. Like the celebrities discussed above, these “sex workers” (as they call themselves) brag about how wealthy they are and how much expensive and totally unnecessary junk they can afford to buy. They assume, without question, that wealth, consumerism and prettiness should be the centre of a woman’s existence. Thus they reinforce all kinds of nasty stereotypes about prostituted women and women in general. 

Unlike strong female celebrities, self-proclaimed "sex workers" do not even try to argue that they earned their money through their own efforts. They blatantly claim that they are being paid excessive amounts of money to have orgasms and be physically attractive. These women do not represent the majority of women in prostitution and I doubt they are even representing their own experiences in their entirety. They use their own success to justify the exploitation of other prostituted women throughout both the first and third world and perpetuate an industry that harms these "weak" women. Self-proclaimed "sex workers" speak as if such women barely exist and are mostly an invention of "oppressive" sex negatives. Their contempt for the "non-empowered" is clear.

Conclusion

The reason I am complaining about the way in which liberal feminism excludes poor people and celebrates the rich is not because I want in. Rather, the fact that they came up with their brand of “empowerment” without taking into account the fact that not everybody can afford to follow it constitutes further evidence that the liberal feminist ideology does not truly represent the interests of the oppressed of the world, regardless of the intentions of its proponents.

If liberals really want to stand up for the oppressed of the world they need to recognise that not everyone chooses to be in the situation that they are in economically or in terms of work and not everybody “likes it”. They also need to recognise the difference between an inner sense of “identity” and a social role imposed onto people as part of a hierarchical system. So long as they continue to push the paradoxical view that being dominated economically, socially or sexually can somehow be a form of freedom and individuality, they cannot claim to be fighting for a better, more egalitarian world. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That concludes my critique of liberal feminism’s approach to race and class issues. Such themes will be discussed again in the future, but for now I would like to address other issues, such as how to distinguish liberal feminists from true radicals.