#neoliberal theory

[housewivesoffrankfurt]

The Real Housewives of Melbourne as a Site of 'Feminist Exchange', Featuring Neither Realism Nor Housewives

It is a typical evening. I sit down, and begin to watch the second season of The Real Housewives of Melbourne, eager to see a new iteration of cast members uncover their unreachably exotic lifestyles and dramas over the course of a season. A season recap plays, and, following it, comes what I find to be my most anticipated part of watching a new season: the housewives’ taglines. Gina Liano arrives on screen, with a lion’s mane of hair and a golden floor-length gown. The word ‘GINA’ appears on screen in large, gold letters as Gina herself crosses her heavily fake-tanned arms and declares ‘I deal in fact, not friction.’

Gina openly alludes to the dualism of ‘friction’ and ‘fiction’ that occupy uneasily close spaces in The Real Housewives, recognising the artificiality of its combat. But does ‘fact’ always have to stand in opposition to this ‘friction’? How can ‘fact’ be defined when used from entirely within the constructed setting of The Real Housewives? How does is actuality expressed across a medium of pure fiction? Of course, her tagline also alludes to what became Gina’s ‘brand’ across the first season. She reiterates to other cast members, and the eager audience, her profession as a lawyer, and thus, her inferred proximity to ‘truth’: ‘I’m a lawyer darling, I deal in fact.’(1) The tagline openly confronts the uneasy rules that constitute the narrative universes constructed in reality television. In one line, she references her societal role as a lawyer, her disdain for conflict and ‘friction’, as well as gesturing towards the construction of the narrative that she participates in.

‘I deal in fact, not friction’, The Real Housewives of Melbourne (Season 2, Episode 1), Matchbox Entertainment, January 2014, online video recording, Hayu <https://www.hayu.com/player/episode/29538344255> [accessed 20/07/2023].

Under this context, where do ‘fiction’ and ‘facts’ begin, end and intersect in the realm of reality TV, or, more precisely, in the unusual positionality of the documentary-soap-drama hybrid? Gina’s tagline illuminates these questions rather than answering them directly. More precisely, she references a ‘reality TV’ that has a troubled relation to ‘reality’ itself. What we see here is a co-opting of actuality into fiction, and, to invoke Slavoj Žižek, we see a procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance.(2) It is the cinematic form of cream without fat or coffee without caffeine: it is ‘real housewives’ with no realism nor housewives. Furthermore, nested in this overarching narrative construct, a construct which serves to provide a ‘real’ slice of life, according to The Real Housewives’ executive commentary, are the performances which constitute the identities of the cast member herself.(3) The performances of gender, class and race are mediated through the performance demanded of reality television and documentary forms, then edited and reassembled further beyond recognition in the pursuit of plot and storyline.

I take Žižek’s sentiment of ‘[the obfuscated] line that separates fiction from reality’ and extend it into the realm of woman-centric narrative reality television.(4) In this pursuit, I examine how real-life identities are reconfigured into characters, the ways in which this impacts performances of gender, class and race, and what these processes reveal about the ‘real world’ that they are drawn from. The overarching aim is to trace the boundaries of how reality television deals with what Angela McRobbie describes as an ‘exchange for feminism’; the subversion of ‘progressively’ coded media into a narrative structure that continues to restrain its subjects and reinforce stereotypes.(5) While The Real Housewives of Melbourne ostensibly seeks to empower women through its platforming of their lives, it only platforms the lives of those who already hold privilege, while ironically diminishing and humiliating them and their subordinates. This coincides with a culture-wide co-opting of progressive ideals in their assimilation into neoliberal capitalism, wherein they are substituted for their opposites. Of course, according to Judith Butler, this overarching categorisation and platforming of ‘women’ as a stable category is in itself a process of restriction, as she suggests that ‘the category of “women,” the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought.’(6) Thus, parallels emerge between the platforming of women in The Real Housewives and their restraint in a variety of ways; the subscription to the category of ‘woman’, the privileging of already privileged lifestyles, and the promoted humiliation of its cast members.

Indeed, the narratives surrounding ‘empowerment’ itself mark a shift towards a neoliberally individualised expression of womanhood; a Foucaultian, commodified neoliberal woman, who is subjected to the subverting core tenets of McRobbie’s ‘feminist exchange’.(7) The ‘empowerment’ enacted by The Real Housewives appears to instead be a process of elevation from an already economically privileged status into one that is also socially privileged: the subject commodifies not just as a rich woman, but is culturally exported as a celebrity too. As an extension to this, Brenda Weber examines elevations to celebrity status as she proposes that celebrity status signifies the combination of image and charisma as currency in an Americanised neoliberal global marketplace of personality.(8) For the power-hungry aspiring Housewife, pure economic wealth does not suffice; she must translate her personality and identity into a commodity from which she may reap social wealth.

FOOTNOTES

(1). Gina Liano, The Real Housewives of Melbourne (Season 1, Episode 2), Matchbox Entertainment, January 2014, online video recording, Hayu <https://www.hayu.com/player/episode/29538344255> [accessed 20/07/2023].

(2). Slavoj Žižek, ‘A Cup of Decaf Reality’ (2015) <https://www.lacan.com/zizekdecaf.htm> [Accessed 25/07/2023].

(3). Alison Brzenchek and Mari Castaneda, ‘The Real Housewives, gendered affluence, and the rise of the docusoap’, Feminist Media Studies, 17.6 (2017) 1022-1036.

(4). Žižek, (2015).

(5). Anglea McRobbie, The Aftermath of Feminism (London: Sage, 2009), p. 1.

(6). Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (London: Routledge, 2006), p. 4.

(7). Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2004), p. 240.

(8). Brenda R. Weber, ‘Celebrated Selfhood: Reworking Commodification through Reality Celebrity’ in Makeover TV: Selfhood, citizenship and celebrity (Durham: Duke University Press, 2009), pp. 215-251 (p. 215).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brzenchek, Alison, and Castaneda, Mari, ‘The Real Housewives, gendered affluence, and the rise of the docusoap’, Feminist Media Studies, 17.6 (2017) 1022-1036.

Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble (London: Routledge, 2006), p. 4.

Foucault, Michel, The Birth of Biopolitics (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2004), p. 240.

Liano, Gina, The Real Housewives of Melbourne (Season 1, Episode 2), Matchbox Entertainment, January 2014, online video recording, Hayu <https://www.hayu.com/player/episode/29538344255> [accessed 20/07/2023].

McRobbie, Angela, The Aftermath of Feminism (London: Sage, 2009), p. 1.

Weber, Brenda R., ‘Celebrated Selfhood: Reworking Commodification through Reality Celebrity’ in Makeover TV: Selfhood, citizenship and celebrity (Durham: Duke University Press, 2009), pp. 215-251 (p. 215).

Žižek, Slavoj, ‘A Cup of Decaf Reality’ (2015) <https://www.lacan.com/zizekdecaf.htm> [Accessed 25/07/2023].

[decolonize-the-everything]

PSA baby leftists:

src

"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" was a Black Panther slogan for a reason.

+

The Crooked politicians in the government are working with the Negro civil rights leaders, but not to solve the race problem. The greedy politicians who run this government give lip-service to the civil rights struggle only to further their own selfish interests. And their main interest as politicians is to stay in power. In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites who are now struggling for control of the American political throne are divided into "liberal" and "conservative" camps. The white liberals from both parties cross party lines to work together toward the same goal, and white conservatives from both parties do likewise. The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the political politician of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These "leaders" sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These "leaders" are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders.

-Malcolm X

+

The conservative, who does not dispute the validity of revolutions deeply buried in history, invokes visions of impending anarchy in order to legitimize his demand for absolute obedience. Law and order, with the major emphasis on order, is his watchword. The liberal articulates his sensitiveness to certain of society's intolerable details, but will almost never prescribe methods of resistance which exceed the limits of legality - redress through electoral channels is the liberal's panacea.

- Angela Davis, If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance

+

Since I know liberals like him so much:

[nando161mando]

[grandpasessions]

The worst thing in the world is a flatterer. With him, you can be sure that at the first opportunity he will strike you a blow, that he will take revenge for having groveled before you. And since he humbles himself before everyone … Flatterers are traitors, without exception. I have always despised them, but I have not been wary enough of them. Unfortunately, we tolerate one who compliments us better than someone who tells us true, and therefore unpleasant, things about ourselves. Thus, it is we ourselves who favor, who encourage our worst enemies. The man we could kill without regret: A “friend” who flattered you every time and who abandoned you for some unknown reason.

Notebooks Emil Cioran

[envolvenuances]

lesbian masterdoc and the unforgivable damage of making people hear compulsory heterosexuality and think of "can lesbians have crushes on men?" (no) instead of "are heterosexual women settling in unhappy marriages with men bellow their worth because of economic and social pressure?" (yes)

[workersolidarity]

The Civil Rights Movement against structural racism, sexism, genderism, etc. and Class Struggle are deeply and intimately connected and intertwined.

This is why the Capitalist Ruling Class works so hard to disentangle the Civil Rights struggle from Class Struggle.

Democrats and Republicans both encourage Culture War divisions, using people's tribal instincts to keep the Working Class from uniting, organizing and fighting back against the Capitalist Class. The Culture Wars are a tool of the Capitalist Class to keep Workers divided.

In this way, the Capitalist Class can appear to be giving concessions that fulfill the demands of the People, all without altering the Class Structure of American Capitalism.

Armed with this knowledge, Workers must set aside their cultural and ideological differences and struggle together against the Capitalist Ruling Class, and not be distracted by the Identity Politics that seek to keep us fighting amongst ourselves, giving the Capitalists the breathing room they need to tighten the noose around Worker's necks.

[leo-fie]

List of stuff that's not only bad science in the sense that someone did some bad science, but in the sense that some asshole just made shit up:

Vaccines cause autism

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

Everything Sigmund Freud ever did

Neoliberalism

Autogynophilia

[icarusxxrising]

I'm getting tired of the sane cycle of anti-capitalism circling social media, because it's anti-capitalism with no substance.

The same people crying "eat the rich!" Are the same people who think we can vote ourselves out of this. They want to "find the addresses of billionaires" but get mad when we celebrate the death of bigoted politicians. They want to make bosses pay but get mad when they're asked to stop consuming from the worst corporations around. They want to save the planet but will cry about violent protests.

Anti-capitalism with no substance isn't anti-capitalism, it's pre-establishment. We need to start pushing a narrative other than anti-capitalism to people. We need to start pushing theories and solutions. And they need to start listening.

[miamicommune]

hate to benefit from my terrible mental health but i have been unintentionally kmsmaxxing on my academic performance for years and it's been doing bits

[morepeachyogurt]

Opening oneself up to such a perception of queerness as manifestation in and of ecstatic time offers queers much more than the meager offerings of pragmatic gay and lesbian politics. Seeing queerness as horizon rescues and emboldens concepts such as freedom that have been withered by the touch of neoliberal thought and gay assimilationist politics. Pragmatic gay politics present themselves as rational and ultimately more doable. Such politics and their proponents often attempt to describe themselves as not being ideological, yet they are extremely ideological and, more precisely, are representative of a decayed ideological institution known as marriage. Rationalism need not be given over to gay neoliberals who attempt to sell a cheapened and degraded version of freedom. The freedom that is offered by an LGBT position that does not bend to straight time's gravitational pull is akin to one of Heidegger's descriptions of freedom as unboundness. And more often than not the "rhetorical" deployment of the pragmatic leads to a not doing, an antiperformativity. Doing, performing, engaging the performative as force of and for futurity is queerness's bent and ideally the way to queerness.

cruising utopia: the then and there of queer futurity by josé esteban muñoz

[dykeulous]

A CRITIQUE OF SECOND WAVE FEMINISM

neoliberalism is, to put in simple words, late-stage capitalism. the highest stage of capitalism is imperialism, so we can see how neoliberalism isn’t as good as many would like. it is an illustration of today’s bourgeois democracy. it is implemented in contemporary “democratic” countries, and was first established by a fascist chilean leader: augusto pinochet.

the insane neoliberalization of feminism is important to understand. it is a process of removing & unlearning the radical goal from feminism & shaping it down so it no longer threatens male dominance & capitalism. the second wave of feminism concentrated majority of its critiques of women’s oppression, attempting to tear down capitalism, basing it mostly around the life in a keynesian society. books & feminist literature during this period mostly spoke about the reality of women experiencing hostile coercion to lead a life of a wife, and therefore a housewife; and being directly & indirectly controlled by men due to the patriarchal values enforced by capitalism. just as this wave of feminism was emerging, neoliberalism performed. neoliberalism formulated itself as the “solution” to massive issues that feminists were coming to world about. the reason to it is because it allowed variants of individual rights. second wave feminists began believing in reforming capitalism, rather than outright tearing it down. some might say they were trying to practice female separatism by “removing” themselves from capitalism. regardless of their intentions, this wave of feminism, while achieving a great deal, still presented itself as a neoliberal movement. women of color & lower-class women were the women who oftentimes disagreed with this, but they were silenced by white rich women. second wave feminism ended up letting neoliberalism make a large impact on the women’s liberationist movement. white rich women ended up being the “icons” of the movement.

we must understand the good things the second wave of feminism achieved, while also critiquing it. mass-highlighting of this “individual success”, careerism & personal choices will lead to the final deradicalization of feminism. the second wave of feminism encouraged radical feminism to grow & develop, but many of its followers went on to be performative activists, and shaped the branch of feminism that we today know as liberal feminism.

[nando161mando]

[cosmicanger]

what it actually means to be neoliberal:

“u are a capitalist opportunist hiding behind words. i point this out bc conservatives will call this woke in attempts to undermine genuine leftist analysis & critiques; this action is rooted in bad faith. one person hiding behind words to make $ is an opportunist & the thing about neoliberals is that the grift comes in many forms. in short, what most people point out as a form of hypocrisy inherent to being "woke" is actually just neoliberalism and has nothing to do with the rest of us. also said this cause some people just don't know what neoliberal means and they think it's like "new liberal" when if anything it's an economic signifier lol”

[bradcruise123]

BOOKS- HERMES YAMANIC

Many Facebook and Twitter accounts that I have had have been deleted, I was censored on Amazon and Bubok, when I had my hermes78.com website active I received notifications of hacking attempts from the United States, Israel, Germany and the United Kingdom, an account with the name Maladho Jalloh who claimed to work for the United States government wrote to me and although I blocked her she continued sending me requests with other accounts.

 Currently, many on the Internet pretend to be victims and tell the lie that they are censored, when in reality YouTube and social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram allow them to promote hatred of minorities and allow them to propagandize governments that promote genocide. But, I really am censored and if you read my free books you will understand why. My free books are titled:

1. BECAUSE AYN RAND, THE NEW AGE, ATHEISM, FREEMASONRY, SATANISM, WHITE PAGANISM AND SOCIAL DARWINISM ARE NOT THE OPPOSITE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THEY ARE NOT THE OPPOSITE OF THE SYSTEM

2. THE WESTERN AND ABSOLUTISM, THE INDIGENOUS AND THE GODS OF POLYNESIA AND THE PHILIPPINES

3. NEFERTUM AND THE PYRAMIDS

4. FORMS OF EVIL: BIBLE, RIGHT, CONSPIRANOY AND NEW AGE

5. GUARANÍ GODS, THE SICK SOCIETY AND REFLECTIONS

6. INDIGENOUS GODS AND INDIGENOUS GODDESSES

7. THE PRICE OF IGNORANCE AND SICK SOCIETY: ITS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, FOR NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT To download them for free, you can open these links:

facebook, twitter, instagram, youtube, Elon Musk, censorship, censored, Books, Bible, Right, Conspiracy Theories, Conspiracy, New Age, indigenous, society, indigenous people, Christianity, Judaism, animals, environment, freemasons, illuminatis, neoliberals, libertarians, neoliberalism, libertarianism, paganism, UFOs, aliens, Vatican, Spanishness, Javier Milei, Donald Trump, VOX, Dross Rotzank, Jair Bolsonaro, Dalas Review, Eduardo Verástegui, Egyptians, #facebook #twitter #instagram #youtube #ElonMusk #censorship #censored #Books #Bible #Right #ConspiracyTheories #Conspiracy #NewAge #indigenous #society #IndigenousPeople #Christianity #Judaism #animals #environment #freemasons #illuminatis #neoliberals #libertarians #neoliberalism #libertarianism #paganism #UFOs #aliens #Vatican #Spanishness #JavierMilei #DonaldTrump #VOX #DrossRotzank #JairBolsonaro #DalasReview #EduardoVerástegui #egyptians

[a-book-dragon]

one of the most repulsive qualities of the neoliberal pop feminist movement is its discourse on consent and respect. here's how it muddies the waters and actually sets us back:

saying stuff like "consent is hot and it makes you sexy!" "women are attracted to kind, respectful guys who never pressure them!" "being a feminist is always the biggest turn on!" etc. is inefficient because:

it commodifies an ETHICAL QUESTION. it shouldn't matter how much or how little respecting boundaries and having a healthy view of sexuality and relationships adds to your value on the dating market. the very fact fact that the concept of a dating market exists is an abomination. both hookup culture and long term relationships tend to be about gaining social capital by chasing "high value" partners/becoming a perfect object of attention. this is the opposite of love, pleasure, playfulness, respect, exploration. it is the opposite of sexual liberation, no matter if it manages to integrate and thus discapacitate feminist and queer concepts.

it misses the intrinsic motivation. you treat others with respect because you respect yourself and a "respectful person" is what you want to be. not to get something in return. not even because you respect the person before you - they may be pretty stupid, brainwashed or toxic, but you still treat them with a baseline of respect unless they're actively harmful. because of who YOU are.

many women are in fact brainwashed by the patriarchy and WILL chase after men who fit the toxic masculine "high value" ideal. even many self-proclaimed mainstream "feminists". there are many facets to this. 1, in our society, for men (especially those who have economic and cultural capital) arrogance and pushiness is often mistaken for confidence and expertise, both undeniably attractive traits on a biological level. 2, the misrepresenting of controlling and disrespectful behavior as "protective" or "romantic", usually by abusive partners themselves. 3, women generally feel shame about taking an active role in relationships/pursuing partners/clearly stating their desires. they oftentimes focus on making themselves an attractive, passive object of desire for the male gaze. they might sadly prefer having something they don't really enjoy done to them than going through the shame and vulnerability of connecting with their actual desires and agency, + the responsibility to themselves that comes with it. 4, past trauma - frequent encounters with bad behavior make it seem normal, healthy behavior feel weird/boring/even scary and dysregulating. 5, the reproduction of patriarchal oppression by women themselves (usually they're young and attractive, or consider themselves to be so, or are socially respectable family women), harming other, "lower value" women, gender nonconforming men, and nonbinary people. therefore, if you're a straight/bisexual man and meet a woman who has internalized these patriarchal standards and isn't ready to question her views and heal, better don't engage - not only for her sake, but for your own too. having the masculine gender role expected of you is no fun. you will end up hurting yourself and others and repressing your inner being.

the 2 abhorrent categories of men such rhetoric feeds into instead of destroying: the opportunistic pick me boy/fake feminist, and the manosphere guy who's all about following the rules of the sexual marketplace and maximizing superficial value in a very toxic culture with no regards for ethics.

in conclusion: THE SEXUAL MARKETPLACE IS A DYSTOPIA! WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT OUR CHAINS! PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF LOVE, PLEASURE, ACTIVE CONSENT AND REAL FREE LOVE FROM GETTING APPROPRIATED! DESTROY THE SYSTEM OF GENDER!

[vainlungs]

Neopatriarchy is not a new concept. Used by Hisham Sharabi (1988) to explain the failed modernisation in Arab societies, and later by Beatrix Campbell (2015) to express how liberal capitalism and patriarchy intertwine, it was defined as a traditionalist response to growing economic inequalities, precariousness and uncertainties that people face in the times of global neoliberal capitalism. Men who lost both their jobs and the traditional role of breadwinners strove to restore their dominant positions. Ultraconservative religious and civil society groups claimed that women were to blame for men’s powerlessness. Scapegoating women rendered sexual violence unrecognisable: campaigns against sexual violence were seen as women’s attacks on 'traditional' masculinity. The more neoliberalism divided people into minority winners and majority losers, the more traditional discourses against women disciplined them by restoring traditional values and inequalities, laying down restrictions on women’s personal choices, notably in reproductive rights.

— Darja Zaviršek, 'This Is Not a Story Which Would Shock!': The #MeToo Campaign in Slovenia in Journal of Social Policy Research, 18(2)