babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Feminism and Capitalism

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Feminism and Capitalism
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 February 2004 06:52 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When women become leaders of right-wing political parties, large corporations, or other institutions which would elsewise be considered fundamentally "patriarchal" in their nature, is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not talking about women who become middle-managers. I'm talking about women who become seriously wealthy and/or powerful, senior decision-makers.

In particular, I'm thinking a bit about the debate over Belinda Stronach, and what I've perceived as certain babblers' rush to defend her from criticism that they apparently believe is unfairly motivated by her gender. Is that because Stronach is a woman's "success story?" Would it advance the cause of feminism to have more people like her? What about to have her as prime minister? Is that what motivates the desire to "protect" Stronach from "male" or "patriarchal" attempts to "tear her down?"

How do you feel, then, about successful women like Martha Stewart, Condoleeza Rice, or Margaret Thatcher? When Thatcher became PM of Great Britain, for example, did women as a whole there wind up better or worse off?

Personally, I don't think the focus of the feminist project should be to promote and encourage the success of a few exceptional women, within the confines of a larger system that remains fundamentally oppressive.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 04 February 2004 07:49 PM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think you can put Martha Stewart in the same place as Margaret Thatcher and Condoleeza Rice.
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 February 2004 10:20 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fine, take her out of the picture then. She's a Democrat and a "self-made" multimillionaire which does distinguish her from the pack.

I was stretching to find examples of female CEOs because, of course, there aren't many. That still doesn't mean that if a new one joins the ranks, though, that's necessarily "progress."


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 February 2004 10:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problem wasn't that you criticized a woman. It's that you used a gendered epithet by calling her a "rich bitch". Good grief, robbie_dee, it's not like it hasn't been explained 47 times already by Rebecca West what she had a problem with.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 05 February 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Robbie, as I've pointed out, ad nauseum, demanding that women - conservative or otherwise - politicians be treated to the same criticism (or praise, if that's where you're at) as a male politician, isn't special treatment.

You've directed gendered slurs at Stronach. If they were based in actual fact, it wouldn't be half bad, but you haven't been able to back up the "bitch" thing or the "exploiting her sex appeal" one either. You've based your criticism of her on gender stereotypes that so far have no basis in fact.

Again, regardless of where Stronach stands politically, criticism should be directed at what she actually does, what she actually stands for, not for your very gendered perceptions (based in negative stereotypes of powerful or attractive women).

Do Colin Powell's politics make it okay to call him a nigger? Hell no.

Do Belinda Stronach's politics make it okay to call her "a bitch who exploits her sexual attractiveness" without anything to back it up? Hell no. But you just don't get that, do you?


quote:
I was stretching to find examples of female CEOs because, of course, there aren't many. That still doesn't mean that if a new one joins the ranks, though, that's necessarily "progress."
All things considered, Robbie, I'd rather stick heroin into the back of my knee than have you define for women what "progress" in gender equity is.

[ 05 February 2004: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca