But we must understand capitalism in the right way. Contra narrow, old-school understandings, industrial wage labor is not the sum total of the working class; nor is its exploitation the apex of capitalist domination. To insist on its primacy is not to foster, but rather to weaken, class solidarity. In reality, class solidarity is best advanced by reciprocal recognition of the relevant differences among us— our disparate structural situations, experiences, and sufferings; our specific needs, desires, and demands; and the varied organizational forms through which we can best achieve them. In this way, feminism for the 99 percent seeks to overcome familiar, stale oppositions between “identity politics” and “class politics.” Except in the Spanish State, where the feminist strike of March 8 won the support of a large part of the unions. This manifesto describes the myriad of ways that neoliberal capitalism invades our everyday lives: through gender, sexuality, healthcare, and even the environment, to scratch the surface. At the same time, it highlights capitalism’s insistence on a regulatory divide for the sake of the ‘health’ of the economy, which is always prioritized over the health of the people who participate and generate that economy. The withdrawal of paid labour hits the capitalist in the form of permanently lost profits. The withdrawal of unpaid reproductive labour is less straightforward. If the labour takes the form of care for vulnerable others such as children or elderly relatives, withdrawal may not be an acceptable option. In the case of labour that isn’t a matter of life and death—washing up or vacuuming—the woman will either do it later, or someone else will. Or no one will, and the house will get slightly messier. At best, a husband or boyfriend might be shamed into doing something the woman normally does. The capitalist doesn’t suffer, or even notice. That’s what we both hate about fiction, or at least crappy fiction — it purports to provide occasions for thinking through complex issues, but really it has predetermined the positions, stuffed a narrative full of false choices, and hooked you on them, rendering you less able to see out, to get out.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2015. Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family. London: Oneworld Publications. This manifesto is not about outlining detailed courses of action towards an idealized goal. This manifesto is about putting forth the questions and ideas necessary to try to work towards something different that can only be realized by trying. This manifesto should be read and talked about and reread and re-talked about because it is only the beginning. We can decide to change how we consider and participate in this world. We have the ability to look at this system, the damage it has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause, and decide to move in a new direction. It is only through participation in this struggle that we may hope to learn more about the possibilities of one another and ourselves. And as we set out, Feminism for the 99% is the map we need. For the first time in the history of capitalism, women constitute about 47% of this enormous class, but they are still primarily responsible for the unpaid reproductive labor performed in individual households. Yet the truly new and challenging fact is that today, 1.3 billion women (54% of women in the economically active population) participate in the labor market, [5] drastically changing the image of a “white, male working class” that only survives in the nostalgia of the treacherous union bureaucracies. This manifesto is a brief for the second path, a course we deem both necessary and feasible. An anticapitalist feminism has become thinkable today, in part because the credibility of political elites is collapsing worldwide. The casualties include not only the center-left and center-right parties that promoted neoliberalism—now despised remnants of their former selves—but also their Sandberg- style corporate feminist allies, whose “progressive” veneer has lost its shine. Liberal feminism met its waterloo in the US presidential election of 2016, when the much-ballyhooed candidacy of Hillary Clinton failed to excite women voters. And for good reason: Clinton personified the deepening disconnect between elite women’s ascension to high office and improvements in the lives of the vast majority. Against this, Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto “champions the needs and rights of the many — of poor and working-class women, of racialized and migrant women, of queer, trans, and disabled women, of women encouraged to see themselves as ‘middle class’ even as capital exploits them,” while aiming to become “a source of hope for the whole of humanity.”Thus, liberal feminism reproduces inequalities by agreeing with the dominant ideology, even though it is harmful for so many women. According to the authors of the manifesto, corporate feminism basically advocates for an “equal opportunity domination” (p. 2), that is to say that this kind of feminism wants women to be able to dominate their poor employees and become wealthier at the expense of the rest of the population, just as male managers do. It is a good thing to ask for equal pay with men, but even if it was achieved, poor women workers would remain as precarious as poor men workers. LORRIAUX, A. (2019). “Féminisme pour les 99%”, le manifeste qui veut un féminisme pour toutes. Slate . [online] 10 May. Available at : http://www.slate.fr/story/176061/manifeste-feminisme-99-liberalisme-capitalisme-egalite [Accessed 05 Dec. 2020]. We disagree in the first place because the authors’ theoretical conception leads them to assert that all sectors of the working class are “equally central” to confronting the capitalist system. From this, they conclude that “class struggle includes struggles over social reproduction,” citing struggles for housing, public transport and free education, among others. Moreover, they maintain that these struggles “now form the leading edge of projects with the potential to alter society, root and branch.” a treatise for an intersectional, socialist feminism that centers collective power over power for just a few Jezebel Clinton’s defeat is our wake-up call. Exposing the bankruptcy of liberal feminism, it has created an opening for a challenge to it from the left. In the vacuum produced by liberalism’s decline, we have a chance to build another feminism: a feminism with a different definition of what counts as a feminist issue, a different class orientation, and a different ethos—one that is radical and transformative.

Feminism for the 99%'s] captivating vision of feminism is not a standalone movement, isolated from battles against the exploitation of people or the planet ... in contrast, [it] calls for radical movements to join together in a 'common anti-capitalist insurgency.' Where do I sign up? Red Pepper The questions we ask ourselves can and should be continuously changing as we as people grow and change. Due to the pathway that neoliberal capitalism has taken us on, what used to be regarded as fundamental political questions such as whether or not one believes in private property now have little relevance. This is because they fail to regard the actualities of the world neoliberalism produces. Such questions assume a vacuum of meritocracy unaffected by the history of patriarchy and imperialism and returning to these old questions maintains a world based on an erasure of that history.Nancy Fraser challenges us to reactivate the audacious spirit of second-wave feminism. Analyzing an imaginary aimed at eradicating exploitation as well as subjugation, she offers a rousing conclusion as to how we might mobilize feminism’s best energies against the perils of the neoliberal present. Lynne Segal That is all. The text does not say anything else on the subject. This leads us to think that the authors have unlimited faith in the power of social movements—as if it were unnecessary to prepare for a confrontation with the capitalist state (which is not mentioned in the manifesto), a state that not only has a monopoly on violence but also has many mechanisms for co-opting and assimilating oppositional movements. This is not a minor question: While some conceptualize social changes as the result of administering state resources or parliamentary work (i.e., reforms), others idealize the social question and disdain political struggle. Unfortunately, whenever radical and transformational social movements rejected struggle in the political arena, they allowed reactionary and reformist sectors to monopolize this space. The authors argue in favor of a common enemy to women and other marginalized people: capitalism. This one is deeply inegalitarian in its very essence, which enslaves women. Capitalism is the cause of all evils: the increase in inequalities, the exploitation of natural resources, the appropriation of the workers’ works, etc.