What do you think?
Capitalism, For and Against: A Feminist Debate
Political philosophy and feminist theory have rarely examined in detail how capitalism affects the lives of women. Ann Cudd and Nancy Holmstrom take up opposing sides of the issue, debating whether capitalism is valuable as an ideal and whether as an actually existing economic system it is good for women. In a discussion covering a broad range of social and economic issues, including unequal pay, industrial reforms and sweatshops, they examine how these and other issues relate to women and how effectively to analyze what constitutes ‘capitalism' and ‘women's interests'. Each author also responds to the opposing arguments, providing a thorough debate of the topics covered. The resulting volume will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, women's studies and global affairs.
360 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 21, 2021
a lot of arguments i disagree with... neither does the author manage to persuade me. The dichotomy of capitalism and patriarchy... the nuanced differences of different definitions... The author does not distinguish them but just use them as unifying and monolithic ones, which is highly problematic to me.
November 22, 2017
Ann Cudd defends capitalism with all the vigor of a college libertarian, but with none of the bullshit or magical thinking. Her defense takes two stages: capitalism as it has existed in history and as it exists now is imperfect, but is clearly superior to both its antecedents and contemporary alternatives. This superiority is broad and multifaceted. The economic growth facilitated by capitalism creates the conditions for flourishing, increasing not only wealth, but also health, opportunity, and other aspects of lives well-lived not captured well by economic figures alone. Such improvements come not only from the innovations of the market, but from public health policies, environmental measures, and social safety nets demanded by citizens economically secure enough to worry about such things.
Cudd argues that the various failures of capitalist countries can usually be attributed to historical injustices that aren't entailed by the logic of capitalism. Patriarchy and racism, for instance, transmit their effects *through* capitalism, but they aren't necessary for capitalism to function. Indeed, capitalism would be much improved if sexism and racism were defeated. Capitalism is historically entwined with colonialism, but capitalism can (and must!) be decolonized. An "enlightened capitalism" can keep the liberating benefits of economic growth while moderating the unevenness of those benefits with social safety nets, regulations to internalize environmental costs, and policies to counter historical oppression, etc.
For women specifically, capitalism opens opportunities for avoiding traditional confining roles. Economic opportunities in the market not only give women a greater bargaining position and threat of exit from oppressive circumstances, but also introduce a greater variety of ways of living. More prosaically, capitalism and economic growth have decreased infant mortality and enabled a shift to fewer children per woman, a large and direct benefit to women, who have historically been chained to their wombs and suffered the significant risks of repeated childbearing.
Nancy Holmstrom's contribution falls flat against Cudd. She mounts a critical case against capitalism, including several valid observations about real injustices. But she fails to acknowledge any relevant basis of comparison. And her vision for a just society doesn't seem remotely plausible given the world as it is. To her credit, she does allow that capitalism has given us the economic growth and innovation that has mad the modern world possible, arguing that while capitalism was once necessary, it has outlived its usefulness. But this leaves her in a precarious position, as she offers no compelling arguments for why the same growth, innovation, and consequent advances in human well-being that capitalism has historically fostered can't simply continue to make life better, with some reasonable corrections for gross injustices.
Cudd argues that the various failures of capitalist countries can usually be attributed to historical injustices that aren't entailed by the logic of capitalism. Patriarchy and racism, for instance, transmit their effects *through* capitalism, but they aren't necessary for capitalism to function. Indeed, capitalism would be much improved if sexism and racism were defeated. Capitalism is historically entwined with colonialism, but capitalism can (and must!) be decolonized. An "enlightened capitalism" can keep the liberating benefits of economic growth while moderating the unevenness of those benefits with social safety nets, regulations to internalize environmental costs, and policies to counter historical oppression, etc.
For women specifically, capitalism opens opportunities for avoiding traditional confining roles. Economic opportunities in the market not only give women a greater bargaining position and threat of exit from oppressive circumstances, but also introduce a greater variety of ways of living. More prosaically, capitalism and economic growth have decreased infant mortality and enabled a shift to fewer children per woman, a large and direct benefit to women, who have historically been chained to their wombs and suffered the significant risks of repeated childbearing.
Nancy Holmstrom's contribution falls flat against Cudd. She mounts a critical case against capitalism, including several valid observations about real injustices. But she fails to acknowledge any relevant basis of comparison. And her vision for a just society doesn't seem remotely plausible given the world as it is. To her credit, she does allow that capitalism has given us the economic growth and innovation that has mad the modern world possible, arguing that while capitalism was once necessary, it has outlived its usefulness. But this leaves her in a precarious position, as she offers no compelling arguments for why the same growth, innovation, and consequent advances in human well-being that capitalism has historically fostered can't simply continue to make life better, with some reasonable corrections for gross injustices.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews