Feminism
as a socioeconomic movement - if that what it is – has a short history. In
fact, in its more recent form, Feminism postdates the emergence of the
Middleclass as the dominant social class and the birth of Capitalism, the
socioeconomic philosophy of the Middleclass. In this paper, I would argue that
Feminism as a movement has the same socioeconomic relevance to the countries in
which it operates as the emancipation of slaves in the US, the freeing of serfs
in the Imperial Russia, the Land Enclosure Movement of the Great Britain, and the abolishment of the Rajakariya System in Sri Lanka by the British to
their respective economies.
With
the rise of the Middleclass, the birth of Capitalism, and the launching of the
Industrial Revolution marching hand in hand, the newly minted 19th
century economies across Europe needed massive amounts of cheap labour. With
slaves, serfs, farmers, and shepherds being already dealt with and absorbed into the
system, females who made up roughly half of the population in most of these countries
were the obvious answer to the problem of labour shortage. However, prior to
the launching of the war cry for the emancipation of women from their bondage by the Feminist Movement across
Europe, with some exceptions in urban areas, the economic activities of the
majority of women were mostly restricted to the domestic sphere with cottage industry
bringing in extra 'cash' when and where it was necessary. As their newly laid
claim as the top dogs of the pile depended largely on their wealth, women being
homebound put a few spokes in the wheels of the Middleclass socioeconomic bandwagon. The Middleclass then had had no choice but to break the time-honoured close ties
that existed between the woman and her home in order to ensure their own survival as a distinct and powerful socioeconomic class; hence, a new rallying call in the
form of Feminism – something that operated symbiotically with the other Middleclass
calls to arms such as neoliberalism, humanism, individualism, democracy, and
modernism – was minted by the intelligentsias that did the culture works for
the Capitalistic Middleclass. These “-isms”, of
course, were of course mere chisels that chipped away at the established powerhouses and
their wielders represented themselves as the self-appointed mouthpieces of the
subaltern.
Terms
such as neoliberalism, humanism, individualism, democracy, modernism, as well
as feminism are not apolitical or altruistic. In my view, these terms are but fronts for
larger socioeconomic aspirations of men and women of the Middleclass in their guerilla warfare against the so-called established patriarchal/feudal institutions. Hence, one of the main functions of the Middleclass Feminism and her siblings is
vilifying notions of communalism, feudalism, and patriarchy. Curiously, once
the so-called Feminists had arrived socioeconomically almost all of these so-called
agitators conform with the norms and values endorsed by the elite
stratum of their society that strongly echo the operations of the feudal order.
This strange predilection the Middleclass have towards aping the very institutions of the stratum of society they had virtually guillotined validates Derrida’s onion skin theory of structures – according to Derrida one
can never be independent of structures; one fall out of a structure only to
fall into another structure. Interestingly, the so-called New World
countries exhibit characteristics that are quite similar to those of the
Middleclass in the so-called Old World countries. The only reasonable explanation
I could arrive at for this remarkable phenomenon is that these countries having bypassed several Ages which
the Old World had laboured through had jumpstarted into existence with a population
with their eyes collectively trained on a particular point of social arrival. And for the modus operandi for the accomplishment of this feat, these countries are indebted to the puritanical Middleclass thinkers across Europe.
In
the end the Middleclass has established itself socioeconomically at the expense of
the Working Class and the Lower Middleclass women who bought into the dream of a Herland. even today Working Class and Lower Middleclass
women are being used to further their aspirations by men and women of the upper classes. In
order to make it, men and women of the aspiring Middleclass parcel off their mundane
domestic tasks to the hired-help from the newly liberated feminine gender of
the Working Class and the Lower Middleclass leaving men women of the
Middleclass-proper time and space to operate outside the domestic sphere and constantly
threaten that metaphorical Glass Ceiling[y1] with breakage.
In
most countries men and women are paid unequal wages for the same work. So
encouraging women to take up jobs formerly performed by more demanding and
competitive male employees is good for the Middleclass Capitalism as women are less
prone to take trade union action against unfair treatment than men. Consequently,
the newly liberated women are routinely overworked and underpaid by their
employers. In addition, there is the added benefit of having women that are of
not their class readily available for
the sexual gratification of the employer. While earning for the upkeep of the
family, almost all Lower Middleclass and Working Class women perform their
traditional domestic chores as unpaid labour. Consequently, most women today
age far rapidly once they are past their twenties. Of course, the Middleclass entrepreneur,
being several steps ahead of those of the rest of the world, cash in on the
feeling of insecurity in aging women in the form of mass produced cosmetics, an
industry that is a running a close second to pharmaceuticals .
Lately,
women with Working Class roots seemed to have become aware of them being used leading
to a new kind of feminist movement called – Radical Feminism. Yet, how much of Radical feminism is just another topic for a PhD, or something to get a foot in at an established institution
with mouth-watering fringe benefits is a question I would leave you to ponder on.
[y1]They say that in the 2016 US presidential election Hillary Clinton
had chosen the venue in which she expected to be announced as the next
President of the US because it had a glass ceiling which they were going to literally
shatter!
.jpg)