Not at all. Since we all live in the current system, it’s a good thing to choose to have a positive impact with what you consume. I just think that this article has very little to do with ethical consumption.
For starters it’s marketing pufferry, that’s specifically by “a brand and media consultancy”. It’s advertising copy that is designed to make you think that the listed retailers are “better” than the others. But that’s dubious- this is basically affinity marketing. You can judge the ethical polices of each business individually, but there’s basically no substance to the central claim- that spending your money with businesses run by a specific demographic group will benefit the group as a whole, or the world as a whole.
For that to be true, one of two very dodgy arguments would have to be true. Either some sort of dubious essentialism, where businesses run by women or minorities are somehow naturally more ethical because being a member of one of these groups makes you a more moral person, or there is a process of identity based supply-side economics going on, where enriching a few members of a demographic group will cause wealth to trickle down to other members of that group.
In a wider sense, it’s just an expression of Diversity Neoliberalism, where the fundamental nature of society is not up for discussion. We cannot challenge the fact that there will be massive inequality within society, so the best that we can do is to ensure that each possible demographic group has its own representation as part of that 1%,
So you can shop fairly and wisely- seek out local businesses if you want your money to stay in the local area.Support non-corporates, support those who give something back. But ultimately, shopping is not a radical act, and ruthless exploitation knows no bounds of colour or gender.
I’m all for promoting women- and minority-owned businesses and products, as well as small/independent businesses and artists, and definitely find it a compelling factor when deciding between options for places to make a purchase.
But sometimes I think about the year I spent working at a place that touted its certified “Woman-Owned Business” status, and how the owner and other employees were the most overtly misogynistic, racist, and overall despicable people I’ve ever had to interact with on a daily basis in my entire life. And I really hope her business fails, because it sucked and she sucked.
That is true, and i’ve often mulled over this contradiction myself. It’s also why some people get upset over people they look up to as “selling out”, but ultimately i want the people i follow to succeed and more importantly get paid their worth. I don’t care if they become rich doing so, the issue often is that a good number of people that do succeed tend to not pay their good fortune forward or give back to the communities that supported them. They depend on everyone until they have enough success that their wealth is self-perpetuating (for the most part).
I think its entirely plausible to raise the future generations to be more mindful and supportive of the communities they’re part of and not seek success to its detriment. Tall order but i don’t think its impossible, and doing so would inherently also lift up less represented minorities and groups.
I did not notice chelsea miller knives and adafruit indeed.
But the post was simply about the fact that the vast majority of the products are gendered. Not only I do not believe in the powers of shopping to heal the world, I also find puzzling that buying more makeup is considered a feminist action.
Wouldn’t that list be much better if about half the products were not so obviously gendered? That is the gist of what I were saying.
I think the difference of opinion can be summarized as: are we supposed to practice “shopping” or to buy things we need? By “shopping”, I think about the act of buying things, because buying makes you feel good. You may need the stuff, or not, but that is not the idea. The idea is that the act of buying makes you feel good.
I’m not sure if it’s even about that, but about how to function in a system that is inherently cruel and divisive, where there is literally no alternative outside of decamping and moving to Cuba or North Korea, which I assume no one here wants to do.
Is shopping going to save our society from the ills of capitalism? Of course not and the OP didn’t even suggest that anyway. Is buying from more diverse sellers going to have the material effect of supporting businesses that are an alternative to larger businesses that are almost entirely run by white men? Well, yes, it might do that.
Certainly supporting women led businesses or small enterprises is a good idea. Certainly none of us can live without buying anything. But, do women led businesses need to concentrate on products that mainly sell themselves in that they make the act of buying feel good instead of being actually useful?
Present women led businesses which sell home insulation, more efficient heating, bicycle repair tools and I would rest my case. Even products like clothes, if they would sell themselves on the concept of longer durability. Probably plenty of other things, too, but none of what they sell on that list (besides the raspberry pie, which people use to build alternative servers to the commercial ones which spy on them, for example)…
But then the concept is the opposite of shopping. It starts from the buyer defining a need and going around to seek who can fill that need. In “shopping”, we have sellers presenting goods and the buyer seeking in the list of goods which one will make them feel good. Quite different and inextricably linked to advertising.
Which reminds me that this site is financed by advertising, yet is supposed to be leaning left. Unfortunately, the revolution will not be financed by advertising.
. You are my new hero.
