Immature Freedoms, Solidarity, And The Privileged Feminists: A Response To A Response of A Critique of Capitalized Feminism OrWhy I Am Too Broke To Be An Effective Feminist

I apologize, I may be all over the place with this. I beg your patience, and perhaps we can work through this.

In Bell Hooks' response, a number of keypoints were made critically viewing Sheryl Sandberg's recent success through Fraser's lens. To give a little background into the “atmosphere” of Sandberg, recently she crossed over the barrier and leaned into the billionaire's club. Well done to her. What she accomplished is the following:

-Formidable financial Success
-Post-Oprah Influence
-Capitalist success through apparently feminist means

Regarding the latter, I think what Bell Hooks is saying is that appearances can be deciving. By Sandberg arguing her success as a victory for feminism through feminism, she creates a beacon out of her own experience. Rather than this showing other feminists a possible path out of their own oppression, it shows them how to navigate through it. Rather than serving Feminism, her story is used to serve patriarchal capitalism.

I'm not sure of whether this is dangerous, or embarrassing. To explain what I mean by this, I would like to frame the Sandberg experience through Simone De Beauvoir's notions of “Freedom”. In “The Ethics Of Ambiguity”, Beauvoir defines Freedom by hierarchizing it into degrees of maturity. Those with a freedom exhibiting a relatively low level of maturity tend to be happier with what appears to be success. This is what is called the Slave's Freedom. The Slave is “free” in that they can make decisions and assert their own experience within the context defined for them by the Master. This is dangerous for the slave, because satisfaction in the appearance of freedom prevents the slave from wanting to dismantle the binds that ensnare them. I say “embarrassing”, because to the Master, the slave thinking they are free eliminates the threat that could have challenged the Master. A slave thinking they are in a position of self-determination is easily manipulated for the gains of the master. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, the reader, for sticking with me long enough for me to finally get back to the initial topic.

Sandberg working through Patriarchal Capitalism, even to become one of the Big Dogs, is nice and all, but how does it help feminism? How does it help Feminism to lean in? The critique as I see it, is one shared by Bhandar and Silva as well. Sandberg is a privilieged feminist, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to ascend to where she is now. Not to say that she didn't have to work hard, to give her all due merit. But the idea that hard work alone will make you a billionaire is too simplistic. The rich don't own a monopoly on hard work. The lower class, the young (and in debt), and persons of color (women of color in particular) all have their share of hard workers. And yet we still have poor people, and jobless college graduates of all majors all trying to fight whatever stigmas prevent them from finding success. Implied in leaning in is the notion that there is enough solidarity for everyone to yield the same result when they lean in. I don't know about you, but when considering the act of leaning in, anytime in my life when I've had to lean in to try and join a group, I was reminded constantly that this conglomeration did not have my membership in mind in the first place. It does not matter how friendly and welcoming they are to me, my presence, or my experience, the fact remains that if I join in, I join in whatever is already established.

For Sandberg to acknowledge the difficulty in universalizing her advice, it would require a paradigm shift. I'm not sure exactly, but I'm leaning towards a shift in understanding that the only solidarity is recognition that there is no true solidarity; “no way as way”. And that is hard to accept, isn't it? After all, it worked for me, and I am a feminist, and I affirmed my femininity in a male dominated world, and I showed them that I could handle myself with the boys, and I value people who care for me, and I didn't stop caring for them, and I made a billion, and isn't that what feminism is about? If it walks like a cat, acts like a cat, looks like a cat, sounds like a cat, it could instead be a kitten.

On "Reframing Justice"

Hello All. Welcome to my blog. Forgive the lack of flair in that intro, I haven't enough sleep for eloquence. Most recently, I read a selection from Nancy Fraser's "Fortunes Of Feminism". In it, Fraser highlights important concepts that suggest a need/lack/inevitable tipping point in the balance between Feminism, Legislation, and [Formerly] Excluded Persons. I'll admit, much of this text went over my head. I did, however, have an image of Fraser's concepts.

She speaks of how prior notions of justice were constructed in a "Keynesian-Westphalian" frame. This frame was built within territorial states, subjecting all those belonging to said territories to said notions of justice. Understandably, there are people who do not in fact fall into this territorial scope, who are not able to enjoy the same notion of justice. That brings up Fraser's point of The "What" and the "Who". The moment we apply a Keynesian-Westphalian frame to justice, we add a Who to the What. This means that rather than just concerning ourselves with the applications of justice, we now have to concern ourselves with Who deserves it.

This leads to my question. Territories didn't seem to be what Fraser wished to combat, but rather the idea that a person outside a territory has to be concerned with their right to have a voice. That these people are twice removed from justice, the first being that they are outside of the territory, and the second being that they have to "earn the right to have rights". Is it a neccesity, that a territory imposes these limitations on one's experience in a society? that a territory framework limits one's ability to fully participate in promoting their own good or Telos? Is it possible to maintain your territory, have the what of justice, but not have the who?