Before now, I had absolutely no idea that there were so many different types of feminism. This is probably part of the reason why so many people are against the idea of feminism and think that it is all very radical and outlandish. Many don't realize the different kinds and degrees of feminism that are out there. The theory that I find to be the most persuasive is the liberal feminism. I like how they are deeply concerned with issues like equal pay for men and women, and working to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. By passing laws (instead of taking radical steps) it seems that a lot of good are coming from these liberal feminists. I think that most women can relate to this point of view, because the majority feel like women are still subordinate to men in the public domain.
The theory that I find to be the most disturbing is Marxist feminism. I don't know if it just seems scary to me that these feminists are trying to overthrow capitalism or that I just don't understand the argument. I don't understand how moving from a capitalistic to Marxist society will increase women's rights. Even if women do usually make less money than men while doing the same job, there are other aspects to women's rights. Sexual harassment will still take place and the government will probably try to decrease the amount of women working.
Feminist research is different from other kinds of research because it gets right to the root of what real women are thinking and feeling. Instead of just reading old books and articles, researchers talk and engage with real women in all different situations including the workplace, the home, and doing other activities outside of the house. They look at it from all different viewpoints and try to put themselves in the position of the subjects instead of just judging them from an outsiders point of view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I want to address Marxist feminism for a second because a lot of people often have questions about it. Not to say that it's the "right" perspective (there is no such thing), but I want to make sure you all understand it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, for those of you who have ever taken an Introduction to Sociology class, this argument might sound familiar to you with regard to what sociologists call "conflict theory." Essentially, Marx was a social theorist who argued that the root of conflict and inequality in society was the class exploitation inherent in capitalism. He argued that there were essentially two classes of people - the proletariat (the workers) and the bourgeoisie (the capitalists or owners of production). His argument is that under capitalism, the bourgeoisie are driven by the profit motive. They own the means of production - the factories, the raw materials, etc. - and want to make money. One way they can make money is to keep labor costs down. So the proletariat, or the workers, essentially trade their labor for a wage, and that wage is not as much as it could potentially be because their bosses are trying to make a bigger profit. You can think about that today when you hear about a factory relocating from the US to Mexico or to Indonesia or something because the labor is "cheaper." That essentially means that the owners of production can get away with paying people less money in those places for doing the same work.
Now, how does this relate to feminism? Well, Marxist feminists argue that women are essentially second-class citizens. Women, for instance, have been conditioned and socialized to providing a TON of labor in the home for FREE - no money whatsoever. If you were to look at all the work that women do in the world for no pay - from agricultural work to childcare to housecleaning, etc. - and tried to assign a dollar value to that work, it would be in the billions of dollars. When I say "assign a dollar value" I mean the costs one would have to pay for that work to be accomplished if I hired someone to do it. For example, instead of me cleaning my house, how much would I have to pay for a "maid" to do it for me. Now the issue with assigning value like that for many Marxist feminists is that those jobs, because they are traditionally associated with "women's work" are devalued in the labor market too. So if, for example, men were the ones expected to do all of the child care work in the world, the theory is that child care would "cost" more because men would get paid more to provide it outside the home (say $20/hour instead of minimum wage for working in a day care center). This is a double kind of class oppression for most Marxist feminists - women get oppressed first because they are expected to do unpaid labor in the home, and second because the types of jobs women do in the private market are also devalued and paid less.
To say that "capitalism should be overthrown" is the real sticking point and major point of controversy for most Marxist feminists. I think most people can probably get on board with the material analysis of Marxist feminists - that women are oppressed in the labor market sounds almost common-sense. It's much harder, on the other hand, to envision what the alternative is. Saying that capitalism should be overthrown does seem kind of pie in the sky and utopian, and it's hard to imagine what that would look like, or if it's something we would really want.
Hope that helps clear stuff up!