Left versus Liberal Feminism: A Struggle

Feminism, corporatism, and the notion of meritocracy have long been at odds with one another. Americans tout their meritocracy as a model for the world, particularly in nations that need to be “democratised,” while ignoring the obvious existence of sexism that prevents women from achieving the same gains that men do. However, American liberals, like American conservatives, believe so deeply in the notion of meritocracy that they have blinded themselves to the inherent, historical inequalities in our nation’s economic, political, and social systems. Sure, they can openly profess to believing that Black Lives Matter, but these proclamations don’t come without a hint of doubt, or even of cynicism. And this is the fundamental question defining the difference between American leftists and American liberals: can a meritocracy ever truly exist?

For leftist feminists, the answer is no, and that meritocracy is impossible as long as capitalist constructs of class, race, and gender exist. For liberal feminists, the answer to this question is yes, and that for white women (if these liberal feminists even demarcate this racial distinction) that meritocracy exists now. Thus, for liberals, using the institutions of capitalism, the institutions from which much of their oppression stems, is a perfectly reasonable tactic for achieving their goals.

I’ve criticised the goals of liberal feminists before for being nothing less than too little too late. I stand by the sentiment of my criticism, but the substance may be misguided. For liberal feminists, they see no irony or hypocrisy in operating within the framework of neoliberal capitalism, because for them it is the only possible framework. Whereas leftist feminists view the goals of feminist struggle against patriarchy, the class struggle against the bourgeoisie, the anti-racist struggle against the colonisers as one and the same, liberal feminists see these as independent, though occasionally intersectional, fights to be waged on separate fields of battle.

Corporate feminism, Lean-in feminism, #empowerment feminism, third-wave feminism, whatever you may call it, are in fact not labels that are descriptive of anything other than this liberal feminism. These forms of feminism, which encourage women (usually white, middle class) to be more aggressive in salary negotiations in the workplace, or more vocal about the complexities of balancing child-rearing and employment, are not the forms of feminism one should look to for activism surrounding minority women, or women in states colonised and crippled by America or American allies (Syria and Palestine come to mind) or even for American women whose lives are over before they even begin because of the socioeconomic class they were born into.

Liberal feminists, the sort that concern themselves with getting Hillary Clinton elected because she is the “pragmatic” or “electable” choice, are by and large the same ones who feel that it’s acceptable to put aside every other struggle in service of accomplishing superficial goals. To these feminists, it is tolerable that women in Libya, Yemen, China and Bangladesh suffer from unspeakable oppression, because speaking out on these issues could lose Secretary Clinton the election.

For far too long, leftists have allowed themselves to be erased from the predominant narrative regarding feminism, whether by center-right (American liberal) politicians, or by celebrated feminists (like Gloria Steinem). Given the current climate of millennial favourability to socialism and leftism in general, we must allow this erasure no longer. It is time to end corporate feminism.