What about the system? : a comparison between the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality

(1)

What about the system?

A comparison between the way that capitalist societies address

climate change and gender inequality

Master Thesis Political Science, Political Theory Track Alternatives to Capitalism: Models for Future Society Yael Wassen

10789383 June 2019

Supervisor: Dr. Paul Raekstad Second reader: Dr. Afsoun Afsahi

(2)

(3)

Abstract

In this thesis, I compare the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality and argue that this is done incorrectly: in both cases, the capitalist structures of society are not taken into account. This has as a result that crucial information is lost. With regard to climate change, this means that the cause of the problem is not addressed. With regard to gender inequality, this means that it is impossible to reach equality for a all, rather than for a few women. The comparison between the way that these problems are addressed point to the importance for activist movements to form alliances. In fact, bundling their strengths seems to be the only feasible way of reaching their goals.

(5)

1. Introduction

On Saturday March 9, the Women’s March was held in Amsterdam (Greenpeace 2019). One day later, on March 10, the Climate March was held (Parool 2019), which followed the exact same route as the other group of protesters walked the day before. While it is clear that both movements are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, they have different goals: one is aimed at fighting gender inequality, the other at fighting climate change. In this thesis, I will compare the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality. While the protests were held on different days and communicated different messages, I argue that the problems they protested against show crucial similarities. More precisely, both climate change and gender inequality have a clear relation to the capitalist system: with regard to climate change, capitalism is the main cause of the problem; with regard to gender inequality, capitalism is an important barrier to solving the problem. Why this is the case will be explained in more detail in chapter 2 and 3. Next to explaining how capitalism affects these problems, these chapters will include an analysis of the way that climate change and gender inequality are currently _addressed. In chapter 4, I will compare the way that these problems are addressed. This task is most important, because it sheds light on a mechanism that transcends the particularity of these problems, and points to a broader critique of the way that capitalist societies address problems. Thus, the research question of this thesis is as follows:

What are the similarities between the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality?

In order to answer this question, the thesis is divided into five chapters. This introduction forms the first chapter, which will be followed by four more chapters.

In chapter 2, I argue that capitalist societies address climate change in a problematic way. Before doing so, I will define the most important concepts of this chapter, which are ‘‘climate change’’ and ‘‘capitalism’’. Capitalism is defined in the way that Fraser and Jaeggi (2018) propose, which means that it is conceptualized as having three main features. Then, I will analyse the

(6)

relationship between capitalism and climate change. Next, I analyse the way that climate change is addressed and argue that capitalist societies do this inadequately: by ignoring the capitalist structures of societies, only the _{effects of climate change are addressed but not its cause.}

In chapter 3, I argue that capitalist societies address gender inequality in a problematic way. Since ‘‘capitalism’’ is already defined in chapter 2, here only ‘‘gender inequality’’ needs to be defined. Then, I will analyse the relationship between gender inequality and capitalism. Next, I analyse how gender inequality is addressed in capitalist societies and again argue that this is done inadequately. Here, the most important problem is that without challenging the capitalist structures of societies, it is impossible to reach gender equality for all women, rather than for a select group.

In chapter 4, I will compare the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality. This chapter starts with a summary of the main arguments that are made so far. Next, I will analyse the similarities between the way that climate change and gender inequality are addressed. This analysis is structured in the same way as the previous chapters, which means I specifically focus on the role that the three main features of capitalism play in the addressment of the two problems. The comparison will point to a broader critique of the way that capitalist societies address problems, namely that the capitalist distribution of both wealth and power hinder societies from adequately addressing problems. This will bring us to another question, namely what the difference is between individual values and the system as a whole, and especially how this affects the way that change should be brought about. The remaining part of chapter 4 discusses the implications of this argument, with as most important implication the possibility for the climate movement and feminist movement to form an alliance. I argue that both movements must dismantle the capitalist system in order to succeed, which is more feasible with an alliance than when operating separately.

(7)

The last chapter is the conclusion of my thesis. The conclusion starts with a summary of the previous chapters. Next, I will discuss the implications and limitations of the thesis. The conclusion ends with four recommendations for future research.

Before carrying out the tasks that I sketched out above, I want to explain why I am motivated to answer this research question, along with a brief discussion of why answering it is relevant. My motivation for comparing how capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality is linked to my academic interests, as well as my personal interests. More precisely, both feminism and sustainability are topics that influence my daily life and have shaped my worldview in important ways. Consequently, most political theories that I focussed on during my studies, are informed by feminist literature. However, sustainability is a topic that I mostly explored in my personal life, rather than within the academic debate. It thus came as a surprise to me when I first found out about the wide range of political theories that are centred around sustainability. What was an even bigger surprise, is how these theories connect to the feminist theories that I had been reading before. The fact that I never noticed the similarities between sustainability and feminism, even though both topics were so important to me, is my main motivation for answering this research question. By comparing the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality, I hope to make more people aware about the similarities between these topics, as I believe they have important implications. This brings me to the relevance of my thesis. Most importantly, answering the research question of this thesis is relevant because it sheds light on a structural problem within capitalist societies. While many scholars point to errors in the way that climate change and gender inequality are addressed, I am not aware of any research that compares the two. Precisely because it is necessary to analyse the questions separately before they can be compared, it is now time to transcend the particularity of these problems and instead focus on a broader critique. The broader critique is not only relevant for scholars, but also has important implications for the real world: showing that there is a structural problem at play could bolster not only the support for the climate movement and feminist movement but also for anti-capitalist activism more broadly. I will turn to the details of

(8)

this in chapter 4, when we have more knowledge about the way that climate change and gender inequality are addressed, and what is precisely problematic about this.

(9)

2. Capitalism and climate change

In this chapter, I will give an overview of the way that climate change is addressed in capitalist societies and argue that this is done incorrectly: while the capitalist system is the main cause of climate change, the capitalist structures of society are not taken into account when addressing the problems. By structurally ignoring the cause of the problem and instead focussing on the effects, climate change cannot be solved. Before explaining this critique in more detail, some concepts must be defined. This means that this chapter starts with the definition of ‘‘climate change’’, ‘‘capitalism’’ and ‘‘capitalist societies’’. When this is done, I will explain the relationship between climate change and capitalism. The chapter ends with an analysis of the way that climate change is addressed and my critique of this.

2.1 Definition of climate change

The basic definition of climate change can be described as ‘‘long-term changes in any aspects of the earth’s climate, especially temperature and precipitation’’ (Miller & Spoolman 2018: G2). Nowadays, the definition of climate change overlaps with the definition of global warming, because the changes in today’s climate are an _{increase of the average temperature. Global} warming can be described as the ‘‘warming of the earth’s lower atmosphere (troposphere) because of increase in the concentrations of one or more greenhouse gases’’ (idem: G9). The increased temperature of the troposphere could result in a change lasting ‘‘for decades to thousands of years’’ (ibid). To get a better understanding of climate change and global warming, I address three questions, namely at what rate the temperature is rising, why the temperature is rising and what the consequences of this are. In order to answer these questions, I will mostly rely on the book _{Creating an Ecological Society, written by Fred Magdoff and Chris Williams} (2017).

Magdoff and Williams explain that in 2016, the average temperature -compared to the base period of 1880 to 1920- increased by 1.26 degrees Celsius (2017: 31). This means that this year

(10)

Earth has always been variable, this rapid rise in temperature is occurring at a much faster rate than the warming that normally occurs at the end of ice ages (Foster, Clark & York 2010: 35).

How come the temperature of the land and sea has suddenly risen so fast? As explained above, the current rise of temperature seems at odds with natural changes (Foster, Clark & York 2010: 35). This time, human behaviour is the leading reason for change (Magdoff & Williams: 29-30). Almost all environmental scientists agree about this and point to the way that humans treat the planet as the main cause for the rapid increase in temperature (Oreskes 2004; IPCC 2018). More precisely, our burning of fossil fuels increases carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and causes its temperature to rise (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 29-30). Predictions are that if we keep producing greenhouse gasses at this rate, the temperature could even rise an additional 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by the end of this century (Jeffery 2015).

Now that it is clear at what rate the temperature of the planet is rising and why, we can turn to its effects. Climate change has various effects on the planet, of which I want to evaluate three. These effects illustrate why climate change is such an important, urgent and complex problem. First of all, climate change disrupts life in the seas (Lear 1998: 135). Usually, the temperature of the sea changes very gradually. This is good because sea animals are so delicately adjusted to their surroundings that they are unable to cope with abrupt temperature changes. If the temperature changes too abruptly, the animals will need to migrate, or they will die (ibid). Both scenarios are harmful, as migration and extinction not only threatens the existence of these particular animals but also those that depend on them for food (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 31-33). This is not only true for the animals that live in the sea, but also for animals living in other environments. In fact, the rising temperature of the water and air is one of the main reasons why we are currently entering the sixth mass extinction in the 4,5 billion years that the Earth has existed (Ceballos et al 2015; Waters et al 2016).

The second effect of the rising temperature of the planet is an increase of evaporation (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 33). In turn, the increase of evaporation can lead to extreme downpours and

(11)

rainfall and increases the risk for natural disasters, like floodings (idem: 107-108; National Climate Assessment 2014; Doocy et al 2013).

The third effect of climate change is that glaciers and ice sheets are rapidly melting (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 34). One of the results of the melting of ice is that the sea level rises. During the twentieth century, the sea level has already risen more than 10 centimeters. Scientists expect that this century, the sea level will even rise another 30 to 120 centimeters (ibid). This rapid rise creates saltwater intrusion that damages low-lying coastal soils in Bangladesh, the Mekong Delta in Vietnam and other areas adjacent to the sea. This, in turn, leads to decreased food production and an increased risk of flooding. Moreover, the melting of the ice sheets and glaciers has another -even more important- result, namely that it accelerates the warming of the Earth. Magdoff and Williams explain that ice reflects half of the incoming sunlight (idem: 33). This means ice is an essential factor in preventing the Earth from overheating. Now that the ice is melting, the Earth is heating up even faster, as open water does not reflect the warmth of the sun but instead absorbs 90 percent of it. This results in a positive feedback loop, and means that the other negative effects of climate change are accelerating as well (ibid).

In addition to the effects of climate change mentioned above, the rising temperature is particularly devastating as it will combine ‘‘with other impacts and leads to further instability and detrimental cumulative effects’’ (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 31). The unpredictability of its effects is what makes climate change even more dangerous: it is hard to take adequate measures when it is not clear how the negative effects will precisely play out in the real world.

2.2 Definition of capitalism/capitalist societies

Now that climate change is defined and its effects reviewed, the other relevant concepts of this chapter must be defined. I will first define ‘‘capitalism’’. For this, I mostly rely on the book

Capitalism_{, written by Fraser and Jaeggi (2018). The book is formatted like a philosophical} conversation and thus forms an useful illustration of the current theoretical debates around

(12)

capitalism. Because the book has the format of a conversation, I will sometimes refer to the words of Fraser and sometimes to that of Jaeggi.

Before formulating a definition of capitalism, I want to address the claim that capitalism cannot be defined. In their book, Fraser and Jaeggi bring up the common claim that it is impossible to define capitalism because there are too many varieties of it (2018: 13). This connects to an idea of Nietzsche, namely that ‘‘only that which has no history can be defined’’ (2006: 53). If capitalism is indeed solely a concept dependent on its context rather than an useful concept on its own, it would not only be impossible to define, but also to criticise: ‘‘There would be no way to establish that the present crisis is really a crisis of capitalism and not a crisis of something else’’ (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 13). In other words, before I can use the term and analyse the way that capitalist societies address certain problems, I must give a definition that does not only define capitalism, but also dismisses the critique that it is an irrelevant term to use.

In order to define capitalism in an useful way, I use Fraser’s example. She explains that to use the term capitalism in an useful way, one must make a distinction between ‘‘relatively fleeting historical forms with the more enduring logic that underlies them’’ (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 15). Thus, when analysing and critiquing capitalism, which is the aim of this thesis, it must be clear to which conceptualisation I refer. Because the aim of this thesis is to form a theoretical, rather than an empirical argument, I choose to use the latter conceptualisation. This means that when I use the term, I do not refer to specific historical forms of capitalism, but to ‘‘the more enduring logical that underlies [it]’’ (ibid).

What are the main features of capitalism? Fraser and Jaeggi define three features:

1) ‘‘Private ownership of the means of production and the class division between owners and producers’’ (2018: 15);

(13)

3) ‘‘The dynamic of capital accumulation premised on an orientation toward the expansion of capital as opposed to consumption, coupled with an orientation toward making profit instead of satisfying needs’’ (ibid).

The first feature: class division

As described above, the first feature of capitalism is the class division between owners and producers. To understand this feature, it is important to take the historical context into account. Fraser and Jaeggi describe this as follows:

the class division supposes the break-up of prior social formations in which most people, however differently situated, had some access to the means of subsistence and means of production - access to food, shelter, and clothing, and to tools, land, and work - without having to go through labor markets. Capitalism destroyed that condition, separating the vast majority from the means of subsistence and production and excluding them from what had been common social resources [...] the majority must now go through a very peculiar song and dance (the labor market) in order to be able to work and get what they need to continue living and raise their children. (2018: 15)

By placing the class division between owners and producers in historical context, it becomes possible to see how ‘‘unnatural’’ and specific it is (ibid). To note that the class division is purposely created and not natural, will help to better understand the critique formulated later on in this thesis.

The second feature: free labor market

The second feature of capitalism is the institution of a free labor market (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 15). In short, this means that labor is seen as a good that can only be obtained through a legal contract, wherein the workers own and sell their labor to the employer-capitalist (idem: 16). However, the freedom of the labor market is a specific form of freedom. To begin with, it has

two layers_{. As Jaeggi describes, ‘‘The workers are free to work, but also ‘‘free to starve’’ if they} do not enter the labor market’’ (ibid). That is, workers are not only free from slavery or being1

(14)

bound to one master or place, but also free from ‘‘access to means of subsistence and means of production, including from customary use rights in land and tools’’ (idem: 17). In other words, while people are not physically forced to sign contracts, in reality they must sign some sort of labor contract: ‘‘The vast majority of people in capitalist countries need to work to make a living and are, by definition, subordinate to those that own and run businesses, the capitalist class and its hired managers’’ (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 126). This means that ‘‘while some minimal economic benefits are available for those without work, few have a reasonable alternative available to selling their labor’’ (Gourevitch 2015: 178).

Next to the fact that most people have no alternative to selling their labor power, it is important to understand that the capitalist system and its labor market have always relied on unfree labor (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 16-17). In fact, the rise of capitalism is one of the main explanations for the New World slavery and other forms of imperialism (ibid). As Magdoff and Williams explain, ‘‘capitalism requires pools of capital and labor, as well as access to natural resources’’ (2017: 60). In order to access these resources, European countries colonised territories, stole land and resources and enslaved millions of people (idem: 60-65). That all of this happened during the transition to capitalism, does not seem to be a coincidence. More so it seems like the competitiveness of the capitalist system motivated European countries to do so (ibid). For example, many of the racist structures that are still in place were created around that time because they served as an ‘‘ideological justification for colonialism and slavery’’ (idem: 132). Why the capitalist system needs expansion, will be explained in more detail in the next section, but for now it is important to note the contradiction within the capitalist system: while capitalism purports to increase freedom, in practice it creates mechanisms of coercion and exploitation. In sum, it can be concluded that the sense of freedom that is distinctive for capitalism is a thin, liberal interpretation of freedom rather than a deeper, more adequate one (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 17). To understand this will be important later on in this thesis.

The third feature: focus on capital accumulation and profit

(15)

satisfying needs (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 15). The explanation for this focus can be traced back to the individual level: within a competitive market, all businesses are forced to grow. As Magdoff and Williams explain, ‘‘If a company fails to expand, its profits suffer and it will eventually be taken over or go bankrupt. There is no such thing as steady-state capitalism: it [is] either grow or die for individual businesses’’ (2017: 54). This means that focussing on capital accumulation and making profit is not a conscious choice that businesses make, but rather a survival mechanism.

On a larger scale the capitalist feature of focussing on capital accumulation and making profit works the same way. As Harvey explains:

The current consensus among economists and within the financial press is that a ‘healthy’ capitalist economy, in which most capitalists make a reasonable profit, expands at 3 percent per annum. Grow less than that and the economy is deemed sluggish. Get below 1 percent and the language of recession and crisis erupts. (2011: 26-27)

That entire economies are focussed on growth, has as a result that satisfying needs is not their number one priority (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 15). In fact, Sweezy emphasizes that ‘‘The purpose of capitalist enterprise has always been to maximize profit, never to serve social ends’’. While it is true that capitalism satisfies the needs of people to some extent, there is also another mechanism at play. Sweezy puts this as follows:

Mainstream economic theory since Adam Smith has insisted that by _{directly maximizing profit} the capitalist (or entrepreneur) is _{indirectly serving the community. All the capitalist together,} maximizing their individual profits, produce what the community needs while keeping each other in check by their mutual competition. All the capitalists together, maximizing their individual profits, produce what the community needs while keeping each other in check by their mutual competition. All this is true, but is far from being the whole story. Capitalists do not confine their activities to producing the food, clothing, shelter and amenities society needs for its existence and reproduction. In their single-minded pursuit of profit, in which none can refuse to join on pain of elimination, capitalists are driven to accumulate ever more capital, and this becomes both their subjective goal and the motor force of the entire economic system. (2004, emphasis in original).

(16)

The 3 percent annual growth that capitalist societies produce, is thus not necessarily prosperity that the whole society benefits from, but rather a reflection of the profit that the capital-owning class makes. In fact, the focus on capital accumulation stands in the way of satisfying the needs of society, as economic growth is not regarded as a means to do so, but as an end in itself. A more detailed explanation of this feature and the effects that it has, will be given in the section below, when the link between capitalism and climate change is analysed.

Capitalist societies

Before explaining the link between capitalism and climate change, one more concept must be defined. In order to answer the research question ‘‘What are the similarities between the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality?’’ we must also have a clear conception of ‘‘capitalist societies’’. In short, when using this term, I refer to all societies that possess the three main features of capitalism as defined by Fraser and Jaeggi (2018: 15). This means that all societies that have a class division between owners and producers, a free labor market and that prioritise capital accumulation and making profit over satisfying needs fall under this definition. An exact assessment of which countries do and which countries do not fall under the definition is not needed, since answering that question is not the aim of this thesis. The aim of this thesis is to show that _{some countries show similarities between the way that they address} climate change and gender inequality. Which specific countries fall under this definition, is another question. However, the research question of this thesis must be answered before answering more detailed questions becomes relevant.

2.3 The relationship between climate change and capitalism

Now that all important concepts of this chapter are defined, it is time to analyse the relationship between climate change and capitalism. First, I explain the link between climate change and the capitalist prioritisation of capital accumulation and making profit. Then, I will explore the impact of the other two main features of capitalism, namely the class division and the free labor market.

(17)

Climate change and the focus on capital accumulation and profit

What is the relationship between climate change and the capitalist focus on capital accumulation and making profit, rather than satisfying needs? The short answer is that capitalism’s prioritisation of economic growth is the _{primary cause of climate change. As explained above,} the competitiveness of the market forces companies to expand. This is not only true for individual businesses, but also for capitalist economies as a whole (Harvey 2011: 26-27). As a result, capitalist societies do not prioritise satisfying the needs of their citizens. This mechanism works the same way with regard to nature. In fact, satisfying the needs of the planet is an even lower priority than satisfying the needs of people (Foster, Clark & York 2010). Because of the competitiveness of the market, companies cannot afford to prioritise reducing their greenhouse gas emission: accumulating capital and making profit will always be a more urgent matter, as the survival of their business depends on it. As Sweezy (2004) states, ‘‘As far as the natural environment is concerned, capitalism perceives it not as something to be cherished and enjoyed but as a means to the paramount of end of profit-making and still more capital accumulation’’. For businesses, exploiting nature is thus a tool to keep up with their competitors, rather than a resource that should be exploited in a sustainable way.

That the focus on economic growth is the primary cause of climate change becomes clearer when looking at the concept of ‘‘externalities’’. In short, economists use this term to refer to ‘‘uncompensated costs’’ (Cornes & Sandler 1996: 6). Cornes and Sandler explain that in a capitalist system, ‘‘the generators of an externality would only incorporate their own costs and benefits into their economic calculus, and would ignore the incidental costs or benefits by others’’ (ibid). Take the example of a party: before inviting the guests, the organizers of the party will make a calculation of the costs. In their calculation, they will include money for snacks, drinks and the rent of a location. What is not likely to be included is the noise pollution or the cigarette smoke that fills the air. In this example, the costs that are not taken into account, are called externalities. Every action has different externalities, but the similarity between the externalities is that they do not get compensated for. While for the rent of a location one needs to pay money, one often does not have to pay for the amount of noise pollution or cigarette smoke.

(18)

This mechanism works the same way for climate change: while many actions have as a cost that they contribute to climate change, in most cases this does not get compensated for. For example, the price that one pays for meat only includes the production price and profit but not the negative effect that it has on the climate. The fact that the production of meat causes a certain amount of CO2 emission and therefore contributes to climate change, is interpreted as an externality rather than a direct cost. For example, if typical British pork would include the cost it has for the environment, the price of a kilogram would be over double as high as it is now (Nguyen, Hermansen & Mogensen 2012). This means that if the government does not take any action to force businesses to compensate for the burden they put on the climate, in the end nobody is compensating for its negative effects. In a capitalist system, wherein making profit is prioritised above satisfying the needs of the planet, the negative effect of externalities are not taken into account.

That businesses are focussed on capital accumulation and making profit raises another question: how _{do companies make sure they grow? The short answer is that they sell commodities.} Commodities are goods and services that are sold for profit (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 55). In order to compete with others, companies find ‘‘new markets in other countries or among new groups of people by introducing them a ‘‘need’’ for these commodities’’ (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 55). What is important to note, is that it does not really matter how useful or necessary commodities are: it is the exchange value that counts. In capitalist economics, the concept of ‘‘value’’ has different varieties. While the term ‘‘use value’’ reflects the usefulness of a commodity, ‘‘exchange value’’ does not (Foster, Clark & York 2010: 56). Rather, the exchange value of a commodity reflects its profitability (ibid). Thus, when companies aim to expand, their primary goal is to sell commodities that have a high exchange value. This is important to note, because it also explains why companies are not focussed on the sustainability of their products: while sustainable products are useful, they do not necessarily have a high exchange value. In order to make as much profit as possible, companies aim to ‘‘convert people to consumption as a way of life, a path to personal happiness, a means of overcoming feelings of emptiness, loneliness, and dissatisfaction that are generated by a system that stresses individualism,

(19)

competition, and consumerism’’ (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 55). Consequently, not only individual companies are trapped in a cycle of focussing on growth, so are consumers. As a result, the _{whole system is focussed on producing and consuming more products, instead of on} satisfying needs. Not the needs of people, let alone the needs of something as abstract as ‘‘the planet’’.

In sum, it has become clear that the capitalist feature of focussing on economic expansion has as a result that both business and consumers are trapped in a cycle of growth. During this process, natural resources are exploited as if they are endless, and the burden that is put on the climate is not taken into account or compensated for. However, this capitalist feature does not stand on its own: it is precisely its connection to the other the main features that explains why it is difficult to put this harmful mechanism to a hold. In the next section, I will explore what role the class division and the free labor market play in the process that I addressed here.

Climate change, class division and the free labor market

Now that it is clear why capitalism is the main cause of climate change, it is important to bring in the other two features of capitalism. These two features, namely the class division and the free labor market, also have a negative effect on climate change. While these features are not the direct cause of climate change, they do make it harder to force change. More precisely, these features result in an unequal distribution of both wealth and power. The result of the unequal distribution of wealth and power is that those who benefit most of the system are at the same time the ones who hold most power to change it. How this works and why this is crucial, is explained in this section.

The first reason why the class division and the free labor market make it hard to force change and combat climate change, is because the features create an unequal division of _{power. In short, the} class division and the free labor market, create an unequal power relation wherein the ones owning the means of production hold the most powerful position and the others only have the freedom to either work for them or ‘‘to starve’’ (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 16-17). As explained in

(20)

section 2.2, the lack of a reasonable alternative forces workers to sign a labor contract. Their survival thus depends upon the goodwill of the capital-owning class and gives them less power to demand changes (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 126). While workers can demand some rights, for example by holding strikes, employers are the ones who decide in which way commodities are produced (ibid).

Power is not the only thing that is divided unequally in a capitalist society: the class division and the free labor market also result in an unequal division of _{wealth. This can be explained by} several mechanisms, with most importantly that those who own the means of production make most profit. This means that the wealth of those who own the means of production keeps growing, while the incomes of those who need to sell their labor does not increase at the same rate. For example, research shows that the income of the poorest half of the U.S. population has stagnated, while the incomes of the richest 1% of the population has grown 300% (Piketty & Goldhammer 2014). This trend is not only visible in the United States, but is a worldwide phenomenon. An Oxfam report states that in 2016 ‘‘the poorest half of the world’s population has received just 1% of the total increase in global wealth, while half of that increase has gone to the top 1%’’ (Hardoon, Ayele & Fuentes-Nieva 2016: 2). Apart from raising the question whether the growing inequality is ethically justified, it also has a crucial relation to climate change. Most importantly, the unequal distribution of wealth is connected to the unequal distribution of power, and therefore makes it harder to force change and thus to combat climate change. How this mechanism exactly works will be explained below.

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the unequal distribution of wealth and the unequal distribution of power are not two separate mechanisms. In fact, the two are deeply connected, which means that wealth influences the political power that one has. The most important research about this phenomenon is from Gilens and Page, who tested which actors have most influence on the policies of the United States government (2014). Through measuring the key variables of 1,779 policy issues, they came to the conclusion that average citizens and mass-based interests groups ‘‘have little to no independent influence’’ on policy (idem: 565). In contrast to this stand

(21)

the economic elite and organised groups representing business interests, who both have substantial independent influence on policy (idem: 572). Moreover, due to the limits of their research methods, the result even underestimates the influence of the latter group. This means that in reality the economic elite and organised groups representing businesses are likely to have even more influence on American policies than their research suggests (ibid). As Gilens and Page put it: ‘‘if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened’’ (idem: 577).

In response to the connection between wealth and power that was found in the United States, Schakel (2019) conducted more or less the same research for another case. As Schakel states, in many ways the United States forms a ‘‘most likely case’’ which means that in this country the connection between wealth and political power is most likely to be found (idem: 1-2). In order to find out whether this conclusion can be generalized towards other countries, Schakel analysed policy-making the Netherlands, which he believes is a ‘‘least likely case’’ (idem: 2). Despite being least likely to find a connection between wealth and political power here, his research showed that policy responsiveness in the Netherlands is also ‘‘strongly skewed toward wealthier citizens’’ (ibid). Moreover, ‘‘_{when preferences between income groups diverge, only the higher} incomes have an effect on policy change’’ (ibid). Thus, it seems as if the connection between wealth and political power that Gilens and Page found, can be generalized towards other countries as well.

Now the question arises how the unequal division of wealth and power relate to the problem of climate change. In short, these inequalities explain why it is difficult to change the economic system. Magdoff and Williams explain that ‘‘The wealthiest 10 percent of the global population uses about 60 percent of the Earth’s resources and is responsible for about the same portion of global pollutants released into the biosphere’’ (idem 2017: 50). These numbers implicate that only a select group of people is responsible for climate change, while at the same time enjoying most of the fruits of the system that creates it. This is important to note, especially since we know

(22)

that wealth is related to power. In fact, it explains why the capitalist system is not changing: because the economic elite, who profit most from the current economic structures, are also the ones that hold most political power, and thus, have most power to change the capitalist structures of society. As Jeffery notes, ‘‘Climate change is a social justice issue. With the climate crisis, as with economic crisis, governments have prioritised the interests of those who caused the problem, despite the consequences for ordinary people. We are not ‘‘all in it together’’’’ (2015). When looking at it this way, climate change is not only an environmental problem, but more so an ethical or social problem. Climate change is a significant threat to life on the planet, caused by the key mechanism at work under capitalism, whilst these same mechanisms undermine solutions to fixing the problems since they concentrate power in the hands of those that benefit from this destruction. Thus, the capitalist system does not only _{create climate change, but is also a crucial}

barrier_{to solving the problem.}

2.4 How climate change is addressed

It is now clear that capitalism, and especially its prioritisation of accumulating capital and making profit, is the main cause of climate change. Next to this, the class division and free labor market make it hard to force change, as it unequally distributes both wealth and power. This means that the ones who have most power to change the system are also the ones who enjoy most of its benefits. In the next section, I analyse the way in which climate change is addressed in capitalist societies. By analysing an example, I will show that capitalist societies address climate change inadequately because they do not take into account the capitalist structures of society. More precisely, I argue that capitalist societies mainly focus on the _{effects of climate change,} rather than its _cause.

The Paris Agreement

To show that capitalist societies mostly focus on the effects of climate change instead of its cause, I will analyse the Paris Agreement. I choose to focus on this agreement because it is the most important international agreement on climate change: no other agreement on climate change is signed by this many countries. It is true that not all of these countries are capitalist

(23)

countries, however, the vast majority is. This means that if my argument is true for this example, I believe we have substantial evidence that my argument is indeed right. In order to make the agreement comprehensible, I analyse the description of its ‘‘essentials’’, as formulated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They describe the essentials of the agreement as follows:

The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and for the first time brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and _{adapt to its} effects_{, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new} course in the global climate effort.

The Paris Agreement central aim is to _{strengthen the global response to the threat of climate} change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the agreement aims to _{strengthen the ability of countries to deal} with the impacts _{of climate change. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial}

flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. The Agreement also provides for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.

Source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2019 (emphasis added)

There are a few things that stand out. Most importantly, the description of the Paris agreement does not mention capitalism once. It does not state what effects capitalism has on the climate, let alone why capitalism is the main cause of climate change (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2019). Because the Paris Agreement obscures the cause of climate change, it justifies the behaviour of governments that do not make real effort to combat climate change. After all, why should governments make radical changes when the problem can

(24)

be fixed within the current framework? That it is not possible to combat climate change within the capitalist framework, because the prioritisation of capital accumulation and making profit contradicts the prioritisation of a stable climate, is a serious shortcoming of the agreement. This means that ultimately, the shortcoming of the agreement itself is the reason why the agreement cannot be lived up to: ‘‘keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius’’, can only be done when nature is prioritised above economic growth. Consequently, prioritising a stable climate is only possible when the main features of capitalism are challenged. Without doing so, it is impossible to reach the goals that are formulated in the agreement.

That the agreement is not focussed on addressing the cause of the problem, is also illustrated by its emphasis on how societies can adapt to climate change. In fact, the importance of adapting to climate change is mentioned three times. Before elaborating on this point, it is important to 2 define what climate adaptation means. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this refers to ‘‘the actions taken to manage impacts of climate change by reducing vulnerability and exposure to its harmful effects and exploiting any potential benefits’’ (Allen et al 2018: 51). While adapting to climate change can serve as a temporary solution, it is not a sustainable solution. Most importantly, some of the effects of climate change simply cannot be adapted to. An example of this is the disruption of sea life. As explained earlier, sea animals are very delicately adjusted to their surroundings (Lear 1998). When the sea temperature rises too abruptly -which will happen when the cause of climate change is not addressed- these animals have to migrate or die. Both scenarios are harmful, as this does not only negatively affect these particular animals, but also the animals and humans dependent upon them for food. The disruption of sea life is thus not something that can be adapted to easily, especially because it will combine with other impacts of climate change and therefore creates unpredictable effects (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 31). That the effects interact with other environmental problems and, are, therefore, hard to predict is not only true for life in the sea, but also for many other

(25)

climate related problems. In sum, by emphasizing the importance of adaptation, the Paris Agreement fosters the false believe that societies can adapt to climate change, while in reality only addressing the cause of the problem is what can ultimately save our planet.

Rather than forming a critique of capitalism, there seems to be a focus on the specific effects that climate change will have and how societies can adapt to those changes. Magdoff and Williams also identify this trend and explain that under capitalism, environmental problems are all solved in a similar way, wherein ‘‘the underlying cause of the problem cannot be questioned’’ (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 112). In this way, problems are not solved, but merely displaced. The reason why capitalist societies fail to address the cause is because:

Remediation must be done in a way that does not fetter business but allows it to make as much profit as possible. So the original cause of the ecological rifts and disturbances- namely, the inability of capitalism to rationally regulate human interaction with the biosphere in ways that regenerate and maintain a healthy ecosystem- cannot be solved. (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 112-113)

Their analysis shows clear similarities with the main features of capitalism that Fraser and Jaeggi (2018) identify: all authors point to the focus on capital accumulation and making profit as the primary reason why capitalism is failing to satisfy the real needs of society. Whether these are material needs or the need to adequately address environmental problems, the important similarity is that capitalism fails to meet these needs. When looking at climate change specifically, it becomes clear that even though capitalism is the main cause of climate change, the underlying capitalist structures of society do not get questioned or held accountable for the problem they create. Instead of focussing on the cause of climate change, capitalist societies primarily focus on solving its effects.

Why capitalist societies primarily address the effects of climate change instead of its cause, is a hard question to answer. There are probably many different answers to it. However, as became

(26)

class division between owners and producers and the free labor market means that wealth and power are unequally distributed. Because the 10 percent of the world population that benefits most from the capitalist system are at the same time the ones with most political power, it is hard to force change. That the wealthy are also the ones that will suffer the least from the effects of climate change could even further reduce their willingness to address the real cause of climate change (Magdoff & Williams 2017: 38-41).

2.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I first defined climate change and capitalism. Then, I explored the relationship between these two concepts. It became clear that all three main features of capitalism have a direct connection to climate change. In fact, capitalism is not only the cause of climate change but also the most important barrier to effectively addressing climate change. More precisely, the capitalist prioritisation of capital accumulation and making profit is the main cause of climate change. That this is not properly addressed, is mainly due to the unequal distribution of wealth and power, which are a result of the class division and the free labor market. That capitalism prevent societies from adequately addressing problems, will become more clear in the next chapter, when the relationship between capitalism and gender inequality is reviewed.

(27)

3. Capitalism and gender inequality

In this chapter, I will give an overview of the way that gender inequality is addressed in capitalist societies and argue that this is done inadequately. This is done inadequately because the underlying capitalist structures of society are not taken into account. More specifically, because capitalism is built upon the division between men and women, addressing gender inequality without challenging the capitalist system will never generate real gender equality. Next to this, the class division prevents societies from reaching gender inequality for all women, rather than for a few.

Before explaining this critique in more detail, the concepts ‘‘gender’’ and ‘‘gender inequality’’ must be defined. When this is done, I will explain the relationship between gender inequality and capitalism. Finally, I analyse the way that capitalist societies currently address gender inequality and argue what is problematic about this.

3.1 Definition of gender inequality

Since the concepts ‘‘capitalism’’ and ‘‘capitalist societies’’ are already defined, for this chapter only the concepts ‘‘gender’’ and ‘‘gender inequality’’ must be defined. For the concept of gender, I will rely on the definition that Zimmerman and West (1987) and Butler (1999) give, as their conceptualisations are not only inclusive but also acknowledge the complexity of categorisations. For the term ‘‘gender inequality’’ I will then combine the definition of gender with a definition of equality. For this, I will use the term ‘‘democratic equality’’ that Anderson (1999) introduces. I believe that combining these concepts gives room to deeper understanding of gender inequality, because it does not only explain what injustice is but also implies what is needed to achieve gender equality.

Gender inequality

Before defining gender inequality, it is important to make a distinction between the concept of ‘‘gender’’ and the concept of ‘‘sex’’. In short, one’s sex refers to the category that people are

(28)

assigned at birth. Which category people are assigned depends on the ‘‘socially agreed upon biological criteria for classifying persons as females or male’’ (Zimmerman & West 1987: 127). This means that there is not one way of classifying, but that classification varies in different contexts. The same is the case for one’s gender, as this category also varies in different contexts. In short, the term refers to the roles that people are expected to take on. More specifically, there is the notion of ‘‘doing gender’’, which means gender is regarded not only as a role but rather as a _{response to societal practices and power relations (Zimmerman & West 1987). This means that} gender is not seen as a fixed category, but instead as a construction that is ‘‘produced, performed and destabilised in complex ways’’ (Butler 1990: 58). Thus, when I refer to the category ‘‘women’’, I refer to it as being a dynamic category, instead of a static one. Conceptualising gender this way will hopefully prevent the analysis from being exclusive and acknowledges the complexity of categorisations.

The next question that arises is what gender inequality means. Like with the term gender, ‘‘equality’’ also has different conceptualisations. Here, too, I will use a definition that is as inclusive as possible. For this, I rely upon Elizabeth Anderson’s conceptualisation, who introduces the concept of ‘‘democratic equality’’ (1999). In short, the concept can be defined as a form of equality which seeks to construct ‘‘a community of equals’’ (idem: 298). Democratic equality is not merely focussed on material forms of equality, but ‘‘integrates principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect’’ (idem: 289). As Anderson notes, this definition is better suitable in the context of oppression, because it recognises that material equality is not enough when it is not based on mutual respect. Therefore, democratic equality ‘‘justifies the distributions required to secure this guarantee by appealing to the obligations of citizens in a democratic state. In such a state, citizens make claims on one another in virtue of their equality, not their inferiority, to others’’ (ibid). Thus, in contrast to other egalitarian conceptions, democratic equality should be interpreted as a social relationship, rather than solely a distribution mechanism (idem: 336). By taking respect as the starting point, this conception of equality acknowledges that in order to function as a community of equals both the redistribution

(29)

of material resources, as well as other aspects of society can be used to meet our ‘‘demands of equality’’ (idem: 336).

In relation to gender, I contend that the concept of democratic equality means that women should have material equality with men to the extent that it functions as foundation for them to engage in democracy as equals. Redistribution then becomes a _{tool in generating equality, instead of} merely a _{means. In addition to this, changing other aspects of society -like social norms- can} serve as a way to reach equality. Therefore, I conceptualize ‘‘gender inequality’’ as every situation wherein the extent of material equality is not sufficient to guarantee democratic equality, or when other aspects of society are hindering women from meeting their demands of equality.

Intersectionality

When researching gender inequality, many scholars use an intersectional approach. The concept of intersectionality was first introduced in the field of law by Crenshaw (1991) but is now used in many different academic fields. Crenshaw argues that research about inequality must focus on the lived experiences of people because conflating or ignoring intragroup differences results in an incomplete understanding of power structures (idem: 1242). With regard to gender, this means that one should be careful to note that most women do not only face gender inequality but other forms of oppression as well. When multiple forms of oppression are included in analyses about power, they are likely to reflect the reality better and could, therefore, offer more adequate solutions to problems (idem: 1249-1250). More importantly, analyses about inequality should not simply add up different forms of oppression, but instead focus on the unique experiences that the intersections between different forms of oppression create. For example, black women experience a combination of sexism and discrimination, which is distinct from the gender inequality that white women face, but also different than merely a combination of these two forms of oppression. Acknowledging the unique form of disadvantage that black women experience, will make analyses more accurate and better reflect reality. In this way, intersectionality can deepen our understanding of power structures. As Hancock explains,

(30)

In this sense intersectionality as a research paradigm can generate problem driven research: it takes a problem in the world, analyzes and moves beyond earlier approaches to studying the problem, and develops a more powerful model to test for its effectiveness in addressing the problem. (2007: 75)

In this chapter, I use an intersectional approach, but in a simplified way. I do analyse an intersection, as I focus on both gender and class. Moreover, by combining the problems of climate change and gender inequality, I aim to take the approach that Hancock describes, namely: take a problem, analyse it and move beyond earlier approaches to studying the problem (Hancock 2007: 75). However, I do not focus on the effects of categories like sexuality, ability or race, of which especially the latter is a category that is almost always included in intersectional research. In fact, some intersectional scholars argue that without including race, one cannot label their research as intersectional (Alexander-Floyd 2012). I will not give a summary of the debate surrounding this issue, but solely want to mention that including the effects of race will no doubt give my research more depth. However, the scope of this thesis does not allow this. Since this thesis aims to form a broader critique of capitalism, I cannot focus on a wide range of specific inequalities. I strongly encourage other scholars to pick up this task and include different forms of inequality, like racism, to the question that I address in this thesis.

3.2 The relationship between gender inequality and capitalism

Before giving an overview of the way that gender inequality is addressed in capitalist societies, the relationship between capitalism and gender inequality must be clear. To make it possible later in this thesis to compare how capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality, I will structure the analysis in the same way as I did in the previous chapter. This means that I will first give a broad framework about the way that feminists have articulated their relation to capitalism and will then analyse the relationship between gender inequality and the three main features of capitalism. First, I describe the relationship between gender inequality and the class division between owners and producers. In order to get a clear idea of how capitalism affects

(31)

historical context into account helps to understand how capitalism exactly changed the way that societies approach gender. Then, I will explain the relationship between gender inequality and the other two main features of capitalism, namely the prioritisation of capital accumulation, and the free labor market. For the historical overview of the way that feminists have articulated their relation to capitalism, I will rely on the analysis of Fraser (2013; 2005). In order to analyse the relationship between gender inequality and the three main features of capitalism, I mostly rely on the book _{Caliban and the Witch, written by Federici (2004). Both the analysis of Fraser and that} of Federici are useful as these historical overviews effectively show how deeply interwoven gender and capitalism are.

Feminism and capitalism

Historically, some feminist movements have combined their critique of the patriarchy with a critique of capitalism. Especially socialist and anarchist feminists played an important role in forming a gender sensitive critique of capitalism (Goldman 1906; He-Yin 1907). The same is the case with modern feminism: albeit not on the foreground during the last couple of decades, the first stage of feminist activism after the Second World War actively challenged the capitalist structures of society (Fraser 2013: 1). The feminist movement joined with other radical movements and argued that ‘‘the personal is political’’. By questioning the division between the public and private sphere, they ‘‘exposed capitalism’s deep androcentrism and sought to transform society root and branch’’ (ibid). Now, not only formal politics became subject of debate, but also practices that before were not deemed worthy of serious critique.

Fraser describes that the next stage of feminist activism also changed in scope. However, this time their critique did not expand, but instead became more focussed. While the previous stage of feminist activism was spread over the political, economic and cultural, now the latter became their primary point of critical review. ‘‘The result was a major shift in the feminist imaginary: whereas the previous generation pursued an expanded ideal of social equality, this one invested the bulk of its energies in cultural change’’ (Fraser 2005: 298-299).

(32)

In the eyes of Fraser, the broad critique that was present after the Second World War could return once again (2013: 1). By exploring the relationship between capitalism and gender inequality, I hope to strengthen this possibility. I believe that feminism should conceive injustice in the broadest sense as possible. Therefore, it is necessary to not only critically examine the patriarchy, but also the capitalist structures of society. In the next section, I will analyse gender inequality and its relation to the three main features of capitalism, namely the class division, the focus on capital accumulation and the free labor market.

Gender inequality and the class division

What is the relationship between the class division and gender inequality? As described in the previous chapter, the class division refers to the creation of a division between owners and producers. As Fraser and Jaeggi emphasize (2018: 16), it is important to note that the division between owners and producers is not natural, but that it was purposely created. To get a better understanding of the constructed character of the class division, Federici (2004) gives a historical account of the rise of capitalism. She not only describes what the transition to a capitalist system looked like, but also why this was especially detrimental to the position of women.

As noted earlier, before the transition to a capitalist system, land and tools were often shared (Fraser & Jaeggi 2018: 16). This means that most people had some access to the means of subsistence, and could make a living for themselves without having to enter the labor market. However, this does not mean that there were no power structures in place. In fact, during feudal times there was a tense hierarchy between the ruling elite and the poor peasantry. Federici explains that when the feudal economy proved no longer sustainable, these relations started to change (2004: 62). Between 1350 and 1500 A.D., workers gained more power:

The real wage increased by 100%, prices declined by 33%, rents also declined, the length of the working-day decreased, and a tendency appeared toward local self-sufficiency. Evidence of a chronic disaccumulation trend in this period is also found in the pessimism of the contemporary merchants and landowners, and the measures which the European states adopted to protect

(33)

markets, suppress competition and force people to work at the conditions imposed. (Federici 2004: 62)

The changes that Federici describe, show that societies moved towards a more egalitarian trend. The growing social movements and protest against the feudal system ‘‘offered the promise of a new egalitarian society build on social equality and cooperation’’ (Federici 2004: 61).

However, this change did not go unnoticed by the elite: before the egalitarian trend could fully crystallize, elite groups tried to increase their power (idem: 21-22). Their concerns about losing power channeled into a joint effort of the merchants, landowners and governments, who introduced new policies aiming to increase commercialization (idem: 61). Indeed, these are the policies that we nowadays call the beginning of capitalism. Slowly, the resources that used to be public started to become private. This meant that the people who did not own any means of production were forced to sell their labor.

The exact way that the transition to a new economic system was realized differs from country to country but the change to capitalism was an international phenomenon. So was the protest against it (Federici 2004: 72-73). Almost everywhere the working class fiercely protested against the new policies that blocked their entry to common resources.

The change to a capitalist system was especially detrimental for the position of women (Dalla Costa & James 1975). Some forms of labor were already gendered, but the transition to capitalism deepened the divisions between men and women. Federici (2004) describes that in this new economic system, women were suddenly positioned in a less powerful position. She explains that women ‘‘found it more difficult than men to support themselves, being increasingly confined to reproductive labor at the time when this work was being completely devalued’’ (idem: 74). The division between paid and unpaid work -and the new ideology that only production for the market is a valuable form of labor (idem: 74-75)- laid the foundation for a new idea of womanhood. At the same time when women were increasingly pushed to focus on reproductive labor, men suddenly became the main breadwinners. Women were now officially

(34)

excluded from many paid jobs and when they did have access to them, they earned ‘‘a pittance compared to the average male wage’’ (idem: 75).

The deepened division between men and women and the enforcement of their new roles, is what Federici calls the ‘‘patriarchy of wage’’ (2004: 68). The term refers to ‘‘the policies which the capitalist class introduced to discipline, reproduce, and expand the European proletariat, beginning with the attack it launched on women, resulting in the construction of a new patriarchal order’’ (ibid). Examples differ from witch hunting to policing women’s bodies (idem: 97-103), but all have in common that women lost an important part of the power over their own lives and that they were made dependent on the approval of men. Not surprisingly, the protests against the capitalist system were also increasingly led by women (idem: 73).

In sum, the capitalist feature of a division between owners and producers represents much more than just the division between those two groups. In reality it exacerbated many different divisions, including the one between men and women. However, to fully understand _why capitalism is in need of these gendered roles, it is necessary to take into account the other features of capitalism as well. In the next section I will explain the relation that these gendered labor divisions have with the capitalist prioritisation of capital accumulation and making profit.

Gender inequality and the focus on capital accumulation and profit

What is the relationship between gender inequality and the capitalist prioritisation of capital accumulation and making profit, rather than satisfying needs? As explained in the previous chapter, this feature refers to the capitalist mechanism that forces businesses to expand (Magdoff and Williams 2017: 54). In fact, if individual businesses fail to do so, they will go bankrupt. In order to keep expanding, consumers are made to believe that the ultimate goal in life is to accumulate as much capital as possible (idem: 55). This means that ultimately, the whole system is focussed on growth (Harvey 2011: 26-27). To explain the relationship with gender inequality, the work of Dalla Costa and James is useful (1975). They explain that the unpaid labor of women is the foundation of capitalism, as ‘‘every sphere of capitalist organization presupposes the

What about the system? : a comparison between the way that capitalist societies address climate change and gender inequality