Why are feminists Socialists?

[Adebisi]

Why are feminists almost always supporters of a regulated economy, minimal rights of private ownership and a huge public sector, strong features of a very collectivist society?

In the Nordic countries the relative success of the welfare state has lead to a massive structural oppression of women. Nurses and teachers, who are mostly women, are given slave wages to provide the nation with free education and cheap heath care. These slave wages combined with the long lines and waiting times which are altering the demand are the reasons for the "successful" health care system. In the US, women are given the wages they deserve in a (relativly) free market. Sweden is the most extreme example here. A Swedish nurse barely makes half of what an American nurse makes.

Sweden is a very corporatist, collectivist society. The power is in the hands of the Social Democrats, a party which has ruled Sweden almost constantly for more than half a decade (clearly a sign of a failed democracy) and a mother union, LO. Together, these two have decided that women are to provide for the common good by working hard for very low wages. Women have no power whatsoever to object this collectivist decision. A number of strikes have brought virtually no results at all. This is probably patriarchalism in its most purest form.

In the US however, health care is not as regualted and women get paid what they deserve. Americans also get the amount of health care they want, at a higher price (the price set by the market).

This proves that feminists should not support a collectivist model of socíety. Indivdualism is a much better tool for freeing women from patriarchal control. I guess that feminism is by definition a very collectivist ideology, but feminists should look to the benefits of political individualism (libertarianism).

Thoughts?

The Scandinavian health care system is also doomed by coming failure of the welfare economy. The Nordic economies cannot both grow and raise their taxes far beyond 50% of GDP.

 

[Rhymes]

I recently asked myself the same question. I think its because rightists represent the succesfull white man, which is the symbol they are fighting. It doesn't make much sense, but hey, what would you expect from women! jk

 

[Little Raven]

I don't understand your complaint. You're comparing apples to oranges. Feminism is a movement that spans a society at virtually every level. You're looking at one specific example in one specific country. While it's possible that you've demonstrated that the Swedish health care system does not provide ideal wages to all of its laborers, I don't think you've made any significant point about feminism in general.

Have you even established that feminists are generally "supporters of a regulated economy, minimal rights of private ownership and a huge public sector, strong features of a very collectivist society?" On what do you base this claim?

 

[Terrapin]

Shhhhhhhhhh--- aDeBiSi, no one is supposed to know about long lines, slave wages and the rest of that. You see, when anyone in the US or Britain tries to say that the semi-socialism preferred by continental Europe is not the way to go, we are told that the Socialism as it is practiced in the Nordic states is the end all and be all-- the perfect 'mix' of capitalism and socialism. So you need to erase this message and learn to be a little more thankful to live in the Best Run Country on Earth... remember you need those corporate statists to provide you with education and healthcare... they could shorten the lines for both by not making provision for people with subversive ideas like yours. That certainly is how Great Socialist Nations have historically dealt with dissent.

As to feminism, all I can say is that here in the US, all of the group rights movements, including feminism, all the various ethnic 'civil rights' groups, the gay rights movement and also most of the environmental movement, have all been co-opted by the hard left. In fact, all the Marxist dogma has been entirely rewritten, substituting race for class. (A natural move, since Marxism's original economic-based theories have been pretty well obliterated by history.) These days, at a US university, if you take classes in Women's Studies, Black American Studies or any similar subject, you will receive an unrelenting diet of Marxist "post-colonial" theory, which is exactly like old fashioned Marxism, except with white people standing in for the property owning class and non-whites as the proletariat.

 

[Rhymes]

"supporters of a regulated economy, minimal rights of private ownership and a huge public sector, strong features of a very collectivist society?" On what do you base this claim?

Without official facts, I too, have observed that most feminists web sites/ interviews/ official political party, etc. are often collectivists or far leftists.

 

[storealex]

I really cant take this seriously. Do you want to know why feminists are socialists, or do you want to argue against Social Democracy?

If the latter, fine, you exagerate greatly to prove your point, but anyone who knows anything about Scandinavia will see you exaggerations, and thus your post will loose value. Here's where I disagree with you:

In the Nordic countries the relative success of the welfare state has lead to a massive structural oppression of women
Nurses and teachers, who are mostly women, are given slave wages

Well, compared to what we usually think of when we say "slave", these wages are pretty high wouldn't you say?
Also, there's no oppression. A Liberitarian would say "nobody forced these women to be nurses" You're a liberitarian aren't you?
US is far richer than Sweden, so it should be obvious that their nurses are better paid. An other reason they would be better paid, it because they don't recieve the services of the welfare state in US.
Finally, in Denmark at least, nurses are paid pretty good.

The power is in the hands of the Social Democrats, a party which has ruled Sweden almost constantly for more than half a decade (clearly a sign of a failed democracy)

You mean half a century, right? Anyway, as long as a party is democratically elected, how can it being in power be a sign of a failed democracy?

In the US however, health care is not as regualted and women get paid what they deserve. Americans also get the amount of health care they want, at a higher price (the price set by the market).

Problem is those who cant pay those higher prices. How do they get the healthcare they want?

The Scandinavian health care system is also doomed by coming failure of the welfare economy. The Nordic economies cannot both grow and raise their taxes far beyond 50% of GDP.

Even if they lowered their taxes to 30%, they could still be a social democracies. In Denmark, taxcuts and tax limits are in function, the welfare state is being adjusted. Our economy is growing every year, and has been doing that for a looooong time. How is that failure?
You seem to conclude that just because Sweden went over the edge, the welfare state is in general a flawed system, but mate, that's a flawed logic

 

[Little Raven]

Without official facts, I too, have observed that most feminists web sites/ interviews/ official political party, etc. are often collectivists or far leftists.

I'm not sure about that, especially the collectivists part. It's certainly true that most feminist organizations in the US are aligned with the Democrats, but when you only have two parties both get very broad. Saying that feminists are socialists because they both tend to vote Democrat is as ludicrous as saying that fiscal conservatives are Christian fundamentalists because they both lean Republican.

 

[Juka The Dumb]

I'm not sure about that, especially the collectivists part. It's certainly true that most feminist organizations in the US are aligned with the Democrats, but when you only have two parties both get very broad. Saying that feminists are socialists because they both tend to vote Democrat is as ludicrous as saying that fiscal conservatives are Christian fundamentalists because they both lean Republican.

or saying that they're fat lesbians.which they are not,of course.feminists,not fiscal conservatives..ok

 

[Rhymes]

I'm not sure about that, especially the collectivists part. It's certainly true that most feminist organizations in the US are aligned with the Democrats, but when you only have two parties both get very broad. Saying that feminists are socialists because they both tend to vote Democrat is as ludicrous as saying that fiscal conservatives are Christian fundamentalists because they both lean Republican.

I was talking more about my observation in Quebec, where left and right are a lot more distant then in the US.
Its weird how the democrates would, by far, be the most rightist party in Canada. We would probably call them extremists!

 

[Boleslav]

I don't accept that there is this correlation between feminism and socialism at all. Both are such wide-spanning 'isms' that sure, they must overlap somewhere at some point, but they are definately not connected ideologies.

 

[joacqin]

Femnists arent socialists, the very first feminists came up from the liberal lines and it is still strong there. It is pretty much only in conservatism which have few to none feminists.

What seems to be true though is that the socialistic feminists are louder than all other socialists and they tend to be more extreme. They are actually the ones who usually set back feminism in general by making feminism look like an extreme man-hating philosophy. On the other hand it seems to be only way to get any attention whatsoever into gender issues, as they say, all publicity is good publicity. Even so the liberal feminists tend to be seriously pissed off at the anarcho-communist-socialist-extremist feminists as they give an erranous image of feminism in their opinion.

 

[Adebisi]

Well, compared to what we usually think of when we say "slave", these wages are pretty high wouldn't you say?

No, they are not. If they were, there wouldn't be such a massive dissent about it and there wouldn't be any strikes.

Also, there's no oppression. A Liberitarian would say "nobody forced these women to be nurses" You're a liberitarian aren't you?

Ehm, there are lots of regulations and thus lots of "force" according to libertarian logics.

But lets just forget about the libertarian definiton of force. Women are, for whatever reason, strongly overrepresented among nurses and teachers. One of the advantages of the welfare state is that the workers in the public sector cannot demand higher wages. That is why health care is so much cheaper in Sweden. It is an established fact that workers in the public sector recieve lower wages.

US is far richer than Sweden, so it should be obvious that their nurses are better paid.

Why do you even bother to bring up cheap points like this, of course the wages of nurses in Sweden are low compared to other groups in Sweden, not outside of Sweden. Otherwise there would not be any strikes.

You mean half a century, right? Anyway, as long as a party is democratically elected, how can it being in power be a sign of a failed democracy?

Because every now and then people will ask themselves why democracy is a good system, and then they will look at the outcome, not the procedure.

Problem is those who cant pay those higher prices. How do they get the healthcare they want?

Well, they could force nurses to work for slave wages?
Or they could force the rich to pay for it with taxes, but such a system is way to expensive to be bearable.
There are no othe options - if you want a welfare state with cheap health care, you need an (in this sense) oppressive public sector.

Even if they lowered their taxes to 30%, they could still be a social democracies.

Is the US a Social Democracy then? I would say no.

In Denmark, taxcuts and tax limits are in function, the welfare state is being adjusted. Our economy is growing every year, and has been doing that for a looooong time. How is that failure?
You seem to conclude that just because Sweden went over the edge, the welfare state is in general a flawed system, but mate, that's a flawed logic

Denmark is a lot more liberal than Sweden. It is also natural for the welfare states to move away from socialism, by cutting taxes and privatizing services, since the welfare economy will not work in the long run. That is why there is still hope for women, because no oublic sector funded by taxes can possibly give them the wages they deserve. Taxes would need to be raised, not lowered, if we wanted to keep or expand the public sector.

 

[Adebisi]

Shhhhhhhhhh--- aDeBiSi, no one is supposed to know about long lines, slave wages and the rest of that. You see, when anyone in the US or Britain tries to say that the semi-socialism preferred by continental Europe is not the way to go, we are told that the Socialism as it is practiced in the Nordic states is the end all and be all-- the perfect 'mix' of capitalism and socialism. So you need to erase this message and learn to be a little more thankful to live in the Best Run Country on Earth... remember you need those corporate statists to provide you with education and healthcare... they could shorten the lines for both by not making provision for people with subversive ideas like yours. That certainly is how Great Socialist Nations have historically dealt with dissent.

I guess you are right. Newsweek's crowning of Sweden as the best nation in the world should be an example of just how unwilling the American left-wing intellectual elite is to accept established facts.

 

[Mise]

That dog has a fluffy tail. Maybe that's why.

or saying that they're fat lesbians.which they are not,of course.feminists,not fiscal conservatives..ok

 

[Mathilda]

Feminists are socialists because they can see the bigger picture.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Socalism and feminism both tend to think of humans in terms of groups (classes and genders, respectively) rather than individuals. It should not come as a surprise if they tend to find more affinity with one another than with individualistic ideologies.

I'm not wasting any compassion on anyone "forced" to be a nurse or teacher. The system's been along in much the same form for so long now that everyone working in it will have known when they entered it wasn't gonna be a well-paying job. (A mounting problem is that the numbers of people who want these kinds of jobs are falling. Surprising, er?)

Yeah, and the Social Democrats didn't "decide" that women were to do these kind of jobs; given the social texture back when the welfare state was erected, it was a given.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Saying that feminists should be libertarians since individualism helps women is, BTW, a bit like saying that communists should be pro-market, since that benefits workers. The goal is not all there is a to an ideology.

 

[amadeus]

Feminists have this sort of asinine cause magnetism in their body that attracts them to "fight" for nonsense like "animal rights," etc.

 

[Adebisi]

I'm not wasting any compassion on anyone "forced" to be a nurse or teacher. The system's been along in much the same form for so long now that everyone working in it will have known when they entered it wasn't gonna be a well-paying job. (A mounting problem is that the numbers of people who want these kinds of jobs are falling. Surprising, er?)

But like I said, igonre the libertarian definition of force. Nurses and teachers are women, and using feminist reasoning, are opressed by the welfare state.

Yeah, and the Social Democrats didn't "decide" that women were to do these kind of jobs; given the social texture back when the welfare state was erected, it was a given.

Does it really matter who decided that women should work in shools and hospitals?

Saying that feminists should be libertarians since individualism helps women is, BTW, a bit like saying that communists should be pro-market, since that benefits workers. The goal is not all there is a to an ideology.

Feminism, as an ideology, is not as clearly outlined as communism. If you read this thread you'll noice that it's definition is under debate. One thing is certain though - the phenomenon I described in my post goes against all principles of feminism.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

In the U.S., feminism is largely passé now, since nearly all of its original goals have been accomplished long ago. As has been pointed out by others, much of what used to be feminism has devolved into extremism, and become lumped with various leftist extremist movements. This bears little resemblance to feminism's original goals of equality for women, with economic, reproductive, political, and social rights.