Feminism Needs Capitalism Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle
The inclusion of more women at the top of oppressive power structures shouldn’t be confused with women’s liberation. We need a radical, socialist feminism, not a repackaged version of Sheryl Sandberg’s corporate-friendly "lean-in" brand.
Multiple employees at the Wing — a self-proclaimed “women’s utopia,” cofounded by Audrey Gelman (left) — have complained of discriminatory and exploitative practices. (Bryan Bedder / Getty Images)
There’s a common way for liberals to depoliticize politics and render it technocratic, by suggesting to radicals that “we all want the same things, we just advocate different means of getting there.” This move transforms the goal (“there”) into something vague and ill-defined: “equality,” “justice,” “fairness,” and so on.
Radicals are made to look like they’re kicking up a fuss — if we want the same thing, why not just go for the less troublesome means? And the political differences are obscured — particularly those that might call into question the liberal’s claim to actually support equality or justice or fairness. Real political antagonisms fade into the background, covered over by technocratic fixes.
This is especially common in the equivocation of liberal feminists between two forms of success: that of individual women, and that of feminism as a political movement. Finding a liberal who reveals their goals explicitly, then, is perversely thrilling.
This article is for subscribers only. Please login or subscribe to access our full archives and beautiful print and digital magazine starting at just $3 a month.