Title: Not All Feminist Ideas Are Equal: Anti-Capitalist Feminism and Female Complicity
Abstract: Introduction This essay seeks to show that a study of female complicity is a worthwhile new direction in feminist studies and a useful paradigm from which to analyse various strains of contemporary feminist discourse. By outlining what I mean by female complicity, I hope to show that feminism should move from a submerged approach to a more explicit discussion of the ways in which women participate in the construction of sexism and the upholding of a patriarchal, or kyriarchal, society. I will look at two recent anti-capitalist feminist texts--One Dimensional Woman, by Nina Power, and Meat Market: Female Flesh under Capitalism, by Laurie Penny--in order to examine their approaches to the notion of female complicity. I conclude that this perspective, with its focus on political action and systemic explanations for inequality, does not concern itself enough with the actions of individuals (which is opposite to the approach of liberal mainstream feminists, who focus too much on the actions of individuals). The authors are open to the idea of female complicity, highlighting that women are not inherently better than men, and that they do objectify one another, but do not offer any conclusive statements on how to deal with this theoretically. These feminists do acknowledge the disrupted sex binary by criticising 'token' or 'decoy' women, but do not extend this to articulate how this affects the traditional categories of feminism. I argue that focusing mainly on the paradigm of work and women's relationship to it (both inside and outside the home) leads to an incomplete stance on female complicity. Whilst a sustained political critique and awareness of intersectionality is a positive aspect of this type of feminism, these authors do not fully explain the issue of complicit women or treat them in a consistent manner. Whilst a structural analysis of power does implicitly suggest that individual action is less important than collective effort, an exclusion of individual female voice means that various categories of women (powerful, sexualised, domestic) appear ambiguously in these texts, undermining the false binary of men versus women, but not offering an alternative model. Of course, the books discussed here have their own goals, and therefore it is understandable that the authors' approaches to complicity are somewhat problematic given that they are addressing issues of their own. Regardless, it is necessary to critique this particular aspect of their work, with the intention of setting the groundwork for further research and discussions on this issue. The focal point of both Power and Penny's work is the strong link between feminism, the situation of women, and capitalism--including the feminization of labour, prostitution as sex work, commodified femininity, and unpaid domestic work. Their work contains a sustained and scathing critique of late consumerist capitalism and the hierarchical class system (including sex, race and sexual orientation) stemming from the power inequalities inherent in it. These two texts serve my purposes of looking at the representation of women perceived to be complicit and the treatment of the notion of complicity. Where some authors represent women perceived to be complicit in a problematic way, (e.g. Ariel Levy and Natasha Walter), Power and Penny do so in a less problematic and more varied way. Power and Penny directly address the idea that women aren't inherently pro-woman in a political and academic manner rather than a sensationalist one; the content of these books is therefore interesting for work concerned with ideas of complicity. Furthermore, Power and Penny's work can be conceived of as politicised popular feminism, which is a fairly uncommon genre, and therefore worthy of attention. I begin by outlining my understanding and application of complicity. I then give a brief overview of contemporary feminism to show why it is necessary to adjust current feminist approaches in line with broad changes in feminist thought. …
Publication Year: 2014
Publication Date: 2014-10-31
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot