Have a good, detailed look at that picture. It represents capitalist society as a pyramid. Think critically about what you see. Take your time.
----------
Ready?
I won’t try to guess your reaction. Instead, I’ll tell you what I see and think, so that you can compare.
I think that picture, old as it is (1912), makes it very easy to imagine what identity politics, especially as seen by the Liberal/Leftish, relatively affluent, upwardly mobile, professional strata midway between the working class and bourgeoisie (for short: “middle class”), is all about.
An example. In that pyramid women are on the “ground level” and the “first floor”. No women above. It’s like an invisible barrier stopped women from rising above first floor: the “glass ceiling”. Modern feminists reading this, whatever they originally thought of that picture, shall have little difficulty appreciating that.
There’s more. One can explain other modern terms using that picture. Take for instance “under-” and “over-representation”. Women are 30% of the characters shown (count them), but no woman is among the three occupants of, say, the fifth floor: women are under-represented among heads of State or Government; men, consequently, are over-represented -- sounds familiar?
When middle class, Liberal/Leftish feminists speak of “equality” this is more or less what they have in mind: if the society that picture illustrates were just -- if equality prevailed -- one would expect that about 30% of fifth floor tenants were women: at least one woman -- occasionally two -- would be there. The same principle applies to the other floors. It’s a “level-by-level” kind of equality (the word “equality” has different meanings, depending on who utters it).
(In a more realistic example, where women are about 50% of the population, equality would mean that approximately half the billionaires, CEOs, heads of State/Government, judges, STEM professionals … and -- presumably -- garbage collectors, waiters/waitresses, kitchenhands, the unemployed and homeless, prison inmates, were women.)
Corollary 1 is that women must be over-represented in the lower levels (in the picture 30% of the population are women, but they are 44% of those on ground level). Corollary 2 is that men are under-represented in lower levels (70% of the population, but only 56% of those on ground level).
(Men and women being on average equally capable, men’s consistent, “systemic” over-representation on top positions comes from something outside acting on the allocation of roles and rewards: male “privilege” – another popular term).
Middle class, Liberal/Leftish feminists aim to abolish male privilege, such that women occupying lower floors (realistically, seldom women from ground level) can move “upstairs” and reap the rewards reserved to those positions.
(To avoid misunderstandings: that’s not the only item in feminists’ agenda. Other causes they advance include female reproductive rights and an end to domestic violence, for instance. And that is only considering rich nations’ feminism. However, given how prominently professional equalisation figures in rich nations’ middle class, Liberal/Leftish discourse, it’s not entirely misleading to leave those other causes out of the picture. Let me call this kind of feminism, upmarket feminism.)
At this stage, a question pops up: wouldn’t upmarket equalisation mean that some upper-floor men must move downstairs (lose their privileges and the rewards associated with them)?
I think that’s undeniable – negatives notwithstanding. Still, although a man myself, I don’t worry overly about that (somehow I suspect my manly financial and professional privileges aren’t the cause of middle class, Liberal/Leftish ladies’ distress).
----------
It’s time to consider the effects of that kind of equalisation over a capitalist society (represented in that picture as well), which of necessity is highly stratified.
Many men – currently high-placed – would lose, probably a lot, just as a comparable number of women currently in middling places would gain the most. By itself it’s unclear that would entail a substantial net increase in aggregate social well-being.
 |
| (source) |
Observe the chart above. Imagine you rotate that picture 90° counterclockwise. The similarity between the resulting image and the pyramid opening goes beyond the shape: both are graphical representations of capitalism. Capitalism is based on inequality. That’s what those two pictures illustrate.
(Not too bad for such an old picture, uh? The guys who drew the original that inspired that picture fell into oblivion. Chances are, they had little education. And yet, over a century after its creation, the image they created endures, not as an antique, but for its usefulness. Not bad at all.)
Imagine now you select two households, one from the $200K to $250K bracket and the other from the $170 to $175 bracket and make them swap incomes. One household wins, the other loses. The chart does not change. By itself that had no effect whatsoever on aggregate income or income inequality.
In terms of the older picture: that floor swap did not change the pyramid or how many floors it has; only the list of tenants (and their gender) at each floor changed … a tiny bit. Where John used to be, Jane is now. That’s a far cry from unimaginable change.
So, if upmarket feminist equalisation only affects those directly involved, why should the rest of us care?
----------
Well, maybe because its benefits could extend to others beyond those directly concerned. Annabel Crabb, for instance, believes business, too, would win: female CEOs, she says, make for more profits. And perhaps that’s so because, as Julia Baird argues, female professionals, although less confident, are more talented than their male counterparts, masters however of reckless self-promotion. (Curiously, although men and women were created equal, now it seems that men are much less equal than women).
Let’s say upmarket equalisation is good for capitalists. Why should that be good for workers? Well, maybe because one could tell shareholders, “But Grandmother! What talented CEOs you have”. But, would you like to hear them saying to you what the wolf said to Little Red Ridding Hood?
(I didn’t think you would :-)).
That’s no bedtime tale. It happened to Pacific Brands’ workers when Sue Morphet broke the glass ceiling and off-shored manufacturing to Asia. She did exactly what thousands of male managers all over the world have done. Gender made no difference (with all due respect, it is I, not the middle class Liberal/Leftish feminist -- male or female -- who believes consistently in gender equality). Male and female CEOs acted as they did because that’s what they were being paid for: their job was and is to maximize shareholders’ profit, not to look after their workers.
The problem with this kind of argument is that it’s relevant to capitalists, not to workers. Still middle class Liberal/Leftish feminists apparently expect it to appeal to workers, because they need workers’ vote come election time.
(Morphet’s current job is to advance the cause of upmarket feminist equalisation. Can you think of a better reason to be skeptic about that kind of identity politics?).
----------
Let’s try another rationale. The advancement of some already affluent professional women may inspire worse off women. Maybe I, as a man -- albeit one down the pecking order -- I’m being insensitive to the pride the latter may feel when the former make it big.
Allow me a digression. I’ve seen Brazilians, Argentines or Uruguayans, often extremely poor, feeling enormous pride and joy whenever their national soccer teams happen to do well in the World Cup. As far as it goes, that’s fine. However, once the euphoria passes, they still must face their reality: a life in slums, without running water or sanitation or electricity or health or education or security. What’s left of all that exhilaration?
I think that isn’t different from the idea that working class women will feel pride in seeing their affluent sisters going places. Pacific Brands was a textile/apparel manufacturer, so most of the workers sacked were women. They will never follow in Morphet’s footsteps, even if that were a desirable example, even if they wanted to.
They had every right to feel unhappy.
I myself would be very unhappy if a Leftish party reduced its political platform to promote upmarket feminism. Even within the rich countries’ feminist paradigm, there are much worthier causes.
----------
So, am I denying upwardly mobile, affluent, professional women access to leadership positions? No, I am not denying anybody anything.
It is legitimate for women to aspire to advancement, isn’t it? Of course it is legitimate. We live in capitalist societies, where individuals strive to climb up the social ladder (it’s not for nothing Scotty from Marketing loves aspirational Australians). Although obvious, let me state this explicitly: women don’t need my blessings. I can’t stop them and I wouldn’t try if I could. So, go for it, ladies.
I won’t stand in your way. But let’s be clear: middle class, Liberal/Leftish feminists want to break the glass ceiling because it will be good for themselves, not because it will be good for society.
----------
If you ask me, I’d rather have that pyramid simplified, flattened: less levels, such that whoever is at the top has less to gain from being there and men and women at the bottom have less weight to carry. That’s a different, alternative way of thinking about equality.
I think it’s a better way, but it’s up to you to decide.
---------
Incidentally and to close, these comments, with a few suitable changes, would apply to any other identity movement – whether based on gender, race, ethnicity, place of birth or age. Just imagine a politically correct graphical depiction, if at all possible, of individuals in those categories replacing men and women in that pyramid.
No comments:
Post a Comment