This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 31 October 2014, At: 04:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Feminist Media StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfms20

A Feminist Political Economic Critiqueof Women and Investment in thePopular MediaMicky LeePublished online: 12 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Micky Lee (2014) A Feminist Political Economic Critique of Womenand Investment in the Popular Media, Feminist Media Studies, 14:2, 270-285, DOI:10.1080/14680777.2012.728145

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2012.728145

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A FEMINIST POLITICAL ECONOMIC

CRITIQUE OF WOMEN AND INVESTMENT

IN THE POPULAR MEDIA

Micky Lee

From a feminist political economic perspective, this paper examines the relationship between

gender and investment in the popular media in three interrelating ways. First, a discourse analysis

was used to examine eight popular books on investment for women published in the US. The

popular financial literature asks women to solve the problems that they encounter in a patriarchal

household by participating in the financial market. Second, Suze Orman was used as a case study

to show the commodification process of financial information through the tactics brand

differentiation, multi-platform delivery, and creation of niche markets. Third, the consumption of

commodities is linked to that of production and distribution by revealing the relations between the

gendered production and reproduction in the household, transnational corporations, and financial

institutions.

KEYWORDS feminist political economy; popular investment books; financial media;

macroeconomics; Suze Orman

Introduction

A feminist political economic approach to communication aims to examine “the

gendered production, distribution, and consumption of goods and resources” and “how

ideology is used to stabilise the unequal social relations” (Lee 2011, 83). Because a political

economic approach to communication “decenter[s] the media of communication . . . [by]

viewing systems of communication as integral to fundamental economic, political, social,

and cultural processes in society” (Mosco 2009, 66), what distinguishes a feminist political

economic approach from other feminist approaches is its emphasis on revealing gender

relations in macroeconomic structures.

The US economy has been experiencing financialisation since the 1970s—that is, there

has been an increasing domination of financial over non-financial activities (Krippner 2011).

The expansion of fictitious capital is unsustainable in the long run (Harvey 2010). The 2008

financial crisis in the US can be seen as the last episode of “a single historical process defined

by the rise, full expansion, and demise of the US system of capital accumulation on a world

scale” (Arrighi 1994, ix). Because financialisation has been used to mitigate stagnation, an

excessive supply of credit has been used to finance production and to stimulate

consumption (Foster and Magdoff 2009).

Feminist Media Studies, 2014Vol. 14, No. 2, 270–285, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2012.728145

q 2012 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Scattered reports on the impact of the financial crisis on women have not paid

attention to the nature of capitalism. These reports stated that women are impacted

differently from men because women fall into poverty more easily and lose jobs at a faster

rate than men do (Bram 2012; Martinez 2012; Ms. Foundation for Women 2011). These

reports have highlighted that a crisis exacerbates the structural inequalities in the US, but

they have not pointed out the power that shapes and determines the structures of global

finance (Strange 1988).

No industry illustrates the unequal distribution of wealth and power as acutely as that

of finance. Whilst graduates from elite colleges flock to jobs in investment banks, those

from two-year colleges have difficulties finding full-time jobs. Whilst many workers are

willing to sell their labour to the capitalists, the capitalists prefer to invest the surplus in the

financial market rather than in production. As a result, fictitious capital has expanded more

rapidly than real income: the trade volume in the New York Stock Exchange increased by

1,000 percent from 1990 to 2000, whilst the household income of the poorest Americans

increased by only 12 percent.1

How can a feminist political economic approach to communication critique the role

that gender plays in the financialisation of the economy? Communication scholars have

looked at various aspects of the financial media: for example, the reliance of the financial

media on press releases provided by public relations firms (Doyle 2006; Tambini 2010); the

format of broadcast financial news (Clark, Thrift, and Tickell 2004; Corner 1998); the media

frame of dominant economic ideology (Greenfield and Williams 2001; Greenfield, Williams,

and Beadnell 2004; Suttles 2010). Yet existing studies have not adopted a gender lens to

analyse the political economic structure of the financial media, the profession of financial

journalism, and the content of the financial media. Because the media contribute to the

domination of finance in society, not only by including financial news as regular news, but

also by creating niche financial television channels and publications (Chakravartty and

Schiller 2010), it is imperative for feminists to examine the intersection between gender,

finance, and the media.

One area that feminists can examine is how the popular media promote investment

to women. In order to facilitate efficient circulation of capital, women—historically not seen

as an active group of investors—are encouraged to pool their resources in the financial

market. Investment advice for women has become a niche market. Financial evangelist and

television personality Suze Orman has attracted women followers. This paper hence

examines: (1) how popular literature on women and investment produces knowledge

about gender relations in both the household and in financial markets. Because a feminist

political economic analysis seeks to understand the relationship between gender ideology

and capitalist production, this paper further looks at: (2) how Suze Orman commodifies

financial information and establishes her own brand; and (3) how transnational media

corporations, financial institutions, and the household maintain a gendered production,

distribution, and consumption of goods and resources. Although the books examined are

published in the US, the gender ideology presented in the books has global implications.

What Has Been Written on Women, Gender, and Investment?

Scholars have written little on women, gender, and finance (Assassi 2009), much less

on women, gender, and investment. In the literature, two seemingly unrelated areas

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

received the most attention: (1) women investors in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century

England; and (2) gender and global finance.

Historical records show that there were more women investors than historians

assumed in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England (Laurence, Maltby, and Rutterford

2009). In addition, as a group, women were better investors than men because they tended

not to speculate in the stock market (Laurence 2009). Prior to 1870, women investors were

either widowers or unmarried women (Freeman, Pearson, and Taylor 2009) because laws

prohibited married women from owning private property. After the enactment of the 1870

Married Women’s Property Act, married women were allowed to own stocks, but not real

estate (Newton et al. 2009; Rutterford and Maltby 2006). Stock ownership meant women

were not confined to the private sphere because they had to consult experts and the

newspapers for information and advice (Henry 2007; Rutterford and Maltby 2006). Some

scholars argued that the market was democratic because it did not discriminate against

women investors (Henry 2007). This body of literature shows that arbitrary property laws

reinforced gender inequality in the English society. These laws naturalised the

subordination of the wife to the husband, and legitimised male domination in the

household. However, it is questionable whether the stock market was as gender-blind as

some claimed.

The second body of literature focuses on the gender dimension of global finance,

which includes macroeconomic policies (such as trade, taxation, credit, exchange rate, and

investment) implemented by national governments, and by international organisations

such as the World Bank and the IMF. Assassi argues that “modern systems of finance,

banking, and credit are based on private property forms which historically involved limiting

the direct access of women in financial security” (2009, 2). She has effectively shown that

Western capitalism and patriarchy relied on each other during the transformation from a kin

society to a rights-based society. Once land became a property, it became a “thing” that

only one gender was entitled to own. A rights-based society separated the public from the

private, and the formal economy from the informal one. The dualisms of public/private,

formal/informal, and male/female have shaped the structure of global finance. The informal

economy, which is mostly constituted of women’s activities, is seen as disorderly and

chaotic; hence it is neglected by orthodox financial models (Assassi 2009; Floro and Dymski

2000).

Porter (2005) and Van Staveren (2002) named four dimensions of gender bias in

global finance: (1) women occupy few decision-making positions; (2) global finance

exacerbates the unequal economic power between the two genders; (3) male bias glorifies

risk-taking activities; and (4) inefficient resource allocation negatively impacts women. The

literature on gender and global finance tends to conceptualise women as victims of a

masculine global economy, and it fails to connect women who own assets to those who

don’t.

The Emergence of the Financial Advice Industry and PopularFinancial Books

There is little documentation or sociological analysis of the emergence of the

financial advice industry and popular financial books. However, it is evident that

the financial advice industry is sizeable and that investment books are a popular genre. The

professional organisation, the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA),

272 MICKY LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

has identified women as a niche client market. Popular financial books play the role of fee-

based advisors because they target individuals with (potentially) small portfolios.

The first popular book on women and investment was The Beardstown Ladies’

Common-Sense Investment Guide, published in 1994 for inexperienced investors. Since the

mid-1990s, there has been a slow but steady release of women and investment titles.

Twelve titles have been published for the US market. These titles account for an

insignificant fraction of investment books. A casual search for “investment books” on

Amazon US returned with a staggering 170,000 titles. The sales figures are no less

impressive: in 1999, 20 percent of all books sold by Amazon were investment-related (Wall

Street Journal 2001).

The profession of financial advice emerged in relatively recent time. NAPFA was

established in 1983. A few reasons explain the demand for the profession. First, since the

1970s, the creation of financial instruments has accelerated, which contributes to the

volatility of prices, which in turn promotes larger returns in shorter time frames. Further,

NASDAQ was established in 1971, which expanded the number of publicly-traded

companies. Second, the rise of the neoliberal ideology promotes the autonomy of

individuals who look after their own economic gains. The economic security of individuals is

tied to the performance of the financial market (Davis 2009). The erosion of social welfare

and lifelong employment has led individuals to see themselves as free agents. Third, the rise

of the expert system is a consequence of modernity (Giddens 1991). The disintegration of

communities of blood relatives gave rise to institutions. Financial advisors have replaced

elders whom individuals turn to for advice and guidance.

The Feminist Political Economy of Communication: Theory andMethod

A feminist political economic approach illuminates how ideology about the financial

market is used to stabilise unequal social relations. A discourse analysis was employed to

deduce themes about gender and finance in popular literature. Feminist political economists

are wary of conceptualising texts as sites of consumption because it reinforces the binary of

(male) production and (female) consumption (Riordan 2002). A productive way to

conceptualise texts is to view them as sites of knowledge production.

All books on investment advice for women published between 2002 and 2011 in the

US market were analysed. The titles were gathered by using the key words “women

investment” in the search function of Amazon US. To ensure that no title was omitted, a

cross check was conducted with the WorldCat database and the Library of Congress

catalogue.

The eight books were published by a range of publishers: from large (Harper) to small;

from general (Kaplan, which publishes test preparation workbooks) to a specialised press

(Light Bulb Press); from small divisions of big conglomerates (Broadway Books of Random

House) to the printing press of financial advising firms (Rich Press of the Rich Dad Poor Dad

brand). The writers have a range of background in finance: part-time day trader, financial

writer, and financial professional. Three writers (Suze Orman, David Bach of the FinishRich

brand, and Kim Kiyosaki of the Rich Dad Poor Dad brand) are “celebrity” financial advisors.

Of the eight books, one was written by two African American women for African American

readers; one was written by a man who has also published books for general readers. Six of

the eight books are step-by-step, how-to guides to financial planning. Of the remaining two

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

books, one book is on option trading and the other argues why Warren Buffet invests like a

girl and why investors should follow his “girly” style.

The eight books were read from beginning to end by this author, but the highly

technical parts were skimmed through (for example, sections on how to understand trading

charts). Most of the references to gender appear in the introduction and conclusion, as well

as in introductory sections to individual chapters. Sentences that mention gender were

underlined and were later grouped into themes. Not all books contain all the themes; some

books emphasise certain themes over others. However, none of the authors rejected any of

the themes. Hence, they form a unified voice. Nine themes are deduced: (1) women are

different from men; (2) women have multiple roles; (3) women are universal; (4) women are

the audience; (5) change is necessary; (6) women are empowered; (7) women are better

investors than men; (8) men can learn from women; and (9) finance is either gender-neutral

or masculine.

What Do Popular Financial Books Say about Gender and Investment?

Popular books on investment for women are self-help, lifestyle improvement

literature, therefore they follow the script of acknowledging the problem (women do not

know how to invest), evaluating the problem (why women are ignorant about investment),

and providing solutions (how women should invest).

Investment books are for the Universal Woman (theme 3) who plays multiple roles in

life (theme 2). The authors ensure that women are addressed by including some highly

gender stereotypical examples. The authors believe that all women have the core problem

in investment: “I found the core problem to be universal” (Orman 2007, 3). All women are

believed to pass through the same stages of financial woes: “every woman will pass

through most of the stages . . . Many will pass through all of them” (Bodnar 2006, viii).

Therefore, all women—“rich, poor, old, young married, single” (Bach 2002, 4)—will benefit

from a financial education, even the fixed income women: “the average Social Security

payment . . . isn’t very much these days. The money you earn through investing can

supplement your Social Security payments” (Bridgforth and Perry-Mason 2003, 13). The

Universal Woman is supposed to be heterosexual; the financial arrangement for same-sex

couples is not mentioned. The Universal Woman has a nuclear family that does not receive

communal material support; the only book that mentions a larger social web (such as the

neighbourhood) is the one that targets African American women.

The books acknowledge the multiple roles that women play: wife, daughter, mother,

boss, employee, friend, volunteer, aunt, niece, sister, and cheerleader. Bodnar wants the

readers to identify with her by describing herself as: “wife, mother, household manager,

author, and deputy editor of [a financial] magazine” (2006, back cover). Gender stereotypes

are also used for the readers to identify with the writers. The readers are supposed to

engage in domestic activities: “the next time you go to the grocery store” (Bridgforth and

Perry-Mason 2003, 16). They are assumed to be brand-conscious frivolous shoppers: “Did

you really need the second pair of Uggs? Did you even need that first pair?” (Lofton 2011,

157). Lastly, they are supposed to be obsessive about weight loss: “It’s no different than

losing weight. If you want to lose weight and keep it off, then there is a process you go

through” (Kiyosaki 2006, 96).

The rationale of writing books for women is that women are different from men

(theme 1) and that women do not know how to invest. The relationship that women have

274 MICKY LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

with money is said to be “dysfunctional” (Orman 2007, 8). The authors explain the

difference between women and men citing biological, social, and cultural reasons: women

need to invest because they live longer, they earn less than men do, and they struggle

financially after divorce. Despite women’s needs to invest, they do not know how to invest

and they avoid learning: “I learned that some of the people closest to me in my life were in

the dark about their own finances . . . I’m talking about smart, competent, accomplished

women who present a face to the world that is pure confidence and capability” (Orman

2007, 1); “I [as a woman] don’t think I’m smart enough when it comes to investing” (Kiyosaki

2006, 87).

To diagnose the problem of why women do not invest, the authors cite that women

have a different investment style from men (theme 2), and that the financial market is too

masculine for women (theme 9). Some authors explain women’s investment style by their

biological make up: “women’s relative lack of testosterone compared to men means they

may actually be hard-wired to be calmer, more disciplined investors” (Lofton 2011, 29).

Some explain women’s investment style by their tendency to be nurturing: “women tend to

nurture their investments” (Kiyosaki 2006, 171). Some explain it by their intuition of looking

for bargains: “women . . . know the value of a Louis Vuitton purse or a pair of Donna Karan

jeans” (Kiyosaki 2006, 169); “more women than men described themselves as ‘bargain

hunters’” (Bodnar 2006, 116). Some reason the difference by socialisation: “women research

their investment decisions more thoroughly than men do, . . . they are less likely to bend to

peer pressure” (Lofton 2011, 26); “what does a girl do when her retirement account is

down? Well, she does not react emotionally and make bad decisions” (Bridgforth and Perry-

Mason 2003, 180).

The financial market is also said to be too masculine for women investors: “[The Dear

Fellow Betting Man] act[s] as if this is a macho adventure, filled with exciting risk—like white

water rafting” (Kirkland and McCullough 2009, xv); “Mr. Market character? He’s all over the

place” (Lofton 2011, 159). As a result, women fear investing because it is a masculine

activity: “women and investing? That’s an oxymoron!” (Kiyosaki 2006, 89); “this quick pace

trading can be exhilarating to some women and stressful to others” (Kirkland and

McCullough 2009, 20); “too many women become fearful about messing up” (34).

However, the writers like to point out that women are as good as men at investing:

“there is no money gene that makes men inherently more financially astute than women”

(Bodnar 2006, 4); “women are natural investors” (Kiyosaki 2006, 165). However, women are

socialised to believe that men are better investors: “white-collar professional men with

above-average intelligence [have] an inflated sense of themselves . . . Women, at the other

extreme, are often portrayed as financially impaired, unable to understand the most basic

financial concepts without having them watered down or sugar-coated” (Bodnar 2006,

116). As a result, women lack confidence in their investing skills and let men (usually

husbands and male financial advisors) take care of financial decisions.

Despite the assumption that women’s investment style is different from men’s, the

writers stated that the investment strategies for both women and men are the same

because the market is neutral—hence contradicting an earlier point that the market is

masculine: “gender is not a factor on any level in mastering the nuts and bolts of smart

financial management” (Orman 2007, 1); “the basic principles of investing are the same, no

matter what your gender or station in life” (Morris and Morris 2003, 6); “whether stocks,

bonds, or real estate, investments do not care if it is a man or a woman” (Kiyosaki 2006, 7);

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

“money is gender-neutral” (Bodnar 2006, 1); “discrimination in financial matters is not the

barrier it once was. ‘Green is green’” (Bridgforth and Perry-Mason 2003, xxv).

The writers frame a financial education as broader issues such as the necessity to

change (theme 5), women’s empowerment (theme 6), and lessons that men learn from

women (theme 8). The authors suggested that with the change in women’s education,

employment, and economic status, a change in women’s attitude towards finance should

come next: “decades ago, women weren’t encouraged to learn money management, just as

women weren’t generally encouraged to pursue careers and earn their own living” (Bodnar

2006, xii). Further, women should take advantage of the change because “there’s never

been a better time in the entire history of the planet for women to be taking control of their

financial futures” (Bach 2002, 5).

Individual changes are emphasised, and the readers are asked to be part of the

change: “no one cares more about your future than you do” (Kirkland and McCullough

2009, xv); “if your major source of income is your job, you need this book and it can change

your future” (Bridgforth and Perry-Mason 2003, xxiv); “today, investing is no longer just for

women. It is a must-have” (Kiyosaki 2006, 64). The readers are asked to be prepared for the

inevitable changes because they can be difficult: “times have changed. Times continue to

change. Times always change” (Kiyosaki 2006, 163).

Another positive outcome of learning investment is women’s empowerment. Orman,

in particular, links money and power to individual empowerment: “there was a huge step

. . . for any woman when she starts to understand the power of saying her name” (2007, x);

“I want to hear you say: ‘I am powerful, I am secure, I am in control of my financial destiny’”

(30); “power doesn’t come from relying on someone else to handle your money” (60).

Women are also asked to re-evaluate their own worth: “one of the defining characteristics

of a Smart Woman is that she is paid what she is worth” (Bach 2002, 259). Once again Orman

sees that a woman’s wealth comes from her sense of self-worth: “the big problem . . . is that

women treat themselves as a commodity whose price is set by others” (2007, 32); “you’re so

reluctant to put a real value on what you do that it diminishes who you are” (33).

The last positive outcome is that men can learn from women. Men who listen to their

wives, mothers, grandmothers, learn something valuable: “it was [my grandma] who helped

me [her grandson] make my first stock purchase” (Bach 2002, 2); “Diane had taught her son

something fundamental” (Bridgforth and Perry-Mason 2003, 6); “here was a husband who

not only listened to his wife on the subject of investing but had the good grace to admit

that she was right” (Bodnar 2006, 113).

From a feminist political economic perspective, these books have failed to

conceptualise women as historical materialist beings; they have avoided the question of

power relations; at every turn they have confused culture as nature; and they have

advocated women’s empowerment as an individual choice. The body of knowledge

produced in these investment books can be critiqued at both the levels of the family and

the market.

The authors of investment books are correct to point out the amount of time that

women spend on taking care of family members, but nature alone does not explain why

these tasks fall on women. The formation of the nuclear family in a capitalist society and the

separation of the public from the private spheres both account for women’s roles in a

family. These books reinforce the separation of the private realm from the public one. They

acknowledge women’s skills in managing household finance, a private domain: “in

countless households, it’s the wife who manages the budget, pays the bills, initiates many

276 MICKY LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

financial decisions, shops for financial and consumer products” (Bodnar 2006, xi). They also

assume that women have an aptitude for shopping and looking for bargains. However, they

state that the public realm—the market—is too masculine for women to participate: “you

do not want any money you need in the short term to be at [Mr. Market’s] mercy” (Lofton

2011, 159); “[women] had trouble grasping such oh-so-masculine concepts as making

money” (Bodnar 2006, 1).

The solution that these books offer is that women have to make an individual choice

by solving the problems that they encounter in a patriarchal household by participating in

the (masculine) financial market. According to these books, if women worry about financial

hardship after divorce, they should invest in the financial market. This solution is

problematic in many ways: first, the financial market is seen as a pre-given, ahistorical, and

gender-neutral entity. The financial market is seen as eternal, i.e., it has always been this

way, it has always existed, and it will always exist. Even though the authors profess to teach

women how to invest, they do not give any account of the history of the financial market,

the deregulation of the banking sector in Western countries, and the globalisation of the

financial market.

Second, the financial market is seen as independent of other markets such as the

consumer market and the labour market. By seeing the financial market as an autonomous

entity, these authors obscure how capital flows from the capitalists to the financiers, and

how surplus value is absorbed in the financial market. Marx ([1894] 1999) believed that

workers in the financial industry are unproductive labour because they absorb the surplus

value created in production. The financial market allows the capitalists to borrow against

the future (Harvey 1982). In order to re-pay loans to banks and to give dividends to

shareholders, capitalists have to ensure a profit margin that exceeds the profit margin of

the competitors. Because material cost is relatively constant, labour cost needs to be

lowered by exploiting workers. Female workers have historically been more exploited

because they are more inclined to accept less pay and fewer benefits. This is particularly

true for female workers in developing countries. Female workers produce more flexible

labour by working part-time. Working outside the home is often painted as a temporary

stage before women get married. They are also less likely to unionise.

Third, these books reinforce a patriarchal capitalist society by emphasising the

exchange of commodities (Hartsock 1983). On the surface, investment books for women

appear to condemn conspicuous consumption. Women are scolded for their shopping

sprees: “spending ultimately does nothing to address deep-seated feelings of deprivation,

inadequacy, or abandonment” (Bridgforth and Perry-Mason 2003, 25). However,

consumption is painted as women’s knowledge. The authors believe that women can

learn how to invest through consumption. Women are to learn the names of publicly-

traded companies by reviewing their favourite brands of handbag, cosmetics, and clothing.

Because the commodities are the fetish, no attention is paid to who makes the commodities

and under what conditions. In the books, “investment-worthy” companies are defined as

those that make reputable products, not those that are the most efficient at exploiting

workers.

Lastly, these books promote the fetishism of money. To Marx, money is a commodity

that is produced in the course of history by a specific social process (Harvey 1982). Although

investment books for women associate financial investment with independence, self-

confidence, and empowerment, the ultimate goal is to accumulate the money commodity.

The book titles reflect this goal: “rich women”; “smart women finish rich”; “money smart

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

women”; “make your money grow.” Because the financial market is seen as an autonomous

entity, money is assumed to, literally, grow on trees. These books foster the notion that

money grows automatically (Harvey 1982). The authors suggest that women who invest

can work less because money will work for them. In an extreme example, one author

advised women to start investing early in life so that they can retire at thirty-five. She further

added that: “today . . . we, as women, can no longer depend on someone else, be it our

husband or partner, our parents, our boss, or our government, to take care of us financially”

(Kiyosaki 2006, 45). What went unsaid is that when the market “takes care” of women who

have assets to invest, it indirectly exploits women who sell their labour at a price that is

contingent on the performance of the stock market and the foreign exchange rate. The

relationship between women with assets and those who do not will be explored in the final

section. A feminist political economic approach does not stop at revealing gender ideology

embedded in the popular media, it also looks at how gender relations in the discourse can

be understood in capitalist production.

Commodification in the Media Industry: Brand Differentiation,Multi-Platform Delivery, and Creation of Niche Markets

In this section, the media industry that produces popular literature on women and

investment is critiqued. The case of Suze Orman is used to illustrate the commodification

process through the tactics of brand differentiation, multi-platform delivery, and creation of

niche markets. Orman writes for the general audience, but she reaches out to women by

writing for O Magazine and by having had a show on QVC, a shopping channel.

Popular financial books are not only sites of knowledge production; they are also

commodities which are produced for exchange in the market. The use value of the

knowledge commodity is different from that of tangible goods because it is not subject to

the law of scarcity. Once the readers learn the basics of financial management from a

resource—be it a book, a television show, an online forum, or an investment advisor—they

may not need the same information from other sources. However, media companies need

to facilitate exchange to create a surplus, therefore they subordinate use value to exchange

value. Brand differentiation is the first tactic that creates a false sense of “use value.”

Brand Differentiation

Financial advisors may have set up shop before Western societies became capitalist,

but contemporary financial “gurus” would not have existed if not for the capitalist nature of

transnational media companies (Leyshon and Thrift 1997). Financial gurus rely on the media

to establish their brands.

The financial advice that Orman gives may not be too different from that of other

advisors, but Orman’s life story and her image differentiate her brand from others. She

brands herself as a straight-talking, no-nonsense expert with Midwestern sensibilities. The

life narrative that she chooses epitomises the familiar American Dream: she witnessed her

family downgrading from middle-class to lower middle-class after her father’s business

failed. Born with a speech impediment, Orman did not excel at school. With low

expectations for herself and with no financial support from parents, she studied social work

in college. The turning point of her life was a customer loaning her a large sum to launch

her own business when she worked as a waitress at the age of twenty-nine. After being

278 MICKY LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

cheated by a broker at an investment bank, Orman decided to become a broker herself.2

She demonstrates the power of “make over” by changing her name from the familiar Susan

to the exotic Suze.

Interestingly, Orman downplays other life experiences that differentiate her from

other celebrity advisors and from the readers. For example, she never mentions how being

a woman and a lesbian makes her think about finance and investment differently. Despite

her powerful woman image, she remains an advisor for both women and men. In addition,

her net worth is at least twenty-five million US dollars and her annual income is between

three and five million (Fabrikant 2006). She has confessed that she could maintain her

standard of living even if no one bought her products. Given her wealth, she is hardly a

girlfriend—how she addresses her fans—of the call-in audience.

Multi-Platform Delivery

Celebrity financial advisors exploit different forms of media to repackage the same

information. For example, Orman’s advice is available in print (nine books, paid

subscription-monthly newsletter, newspaper and magazine columns in O Magazine), audio

CDs and DVDs (with the same titles as the books), television shows (The Suze Orman Show

on CNBC, which is broadcast and replayed five times in North America, three times in Asia,

and six times in Australia every weekend), and live events on college campuses, in business-

to-business conferences, and in corporation meetings. Needless to say, Orman also makes

use of new, “social” media and mobile phone “apps” to stay connected to her audience.

Financial gurus do not provide new information in each new product. The information

covered in the Women and Money tour is identical to that of the book. The live show was

taped for the DVD of the same title. Because Orman is a brand, she could once sell long-

term care policy in her own show on QVC (Fabrikant 2006). Now she sells her own pre-paid

credit card.

Creation of Niche Markets

Creating previously ignored audience segments accelerates the circulation of

commodities. Women have not been seen as avid readers of investment literature. In order

to sell more commodities, publishers release titles that are specifically for women. The

authors argue that gender stereotypes have discouraged women from taking control of

their finances, hence specific books should be written to address gender differentiation in

money and finance. Orman wrote: “women have been thrust into an entirely new

relationship with money that is profoundly different from anything we have encountered

before” (2007, 2). An examination of Orman products shows that women are one of the

latest target groups. Orman had started her own advisory firm in 1987 and published her

first book in 1994, yet Women and Money was her seventh book. She probably had to target

a more specific group after writing extensively for the general reader (a note of interest is

that the sixth book is for another traditionally neglected group—the young and the broke).

Women are only included if they are the consumers. A year after the publication of

Women and Money, Oprah Winfrey made the book freely available on her website. Within

the restricted thirty-three hours, 1.1 million English and 19,000 Spanish copies were

downloaded (Gunelius 2008). Orman was quoted to have said the intention was for women

to read the book, not to buy it. Giving away free content not only helps Orman to build her

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

brand, but it also helps her to reach out to an audience who usually does not buy

investment literature. She may not have made money by giving away free content, but she

created a (mostly) female readership of a million overnight.

Gender in Household Production, Transnational Media Corporations,and Financial Institutions

The previous section shows the commodification of financial information and the

creation of women consumers as a niche market of popular financial books. This section

examines the gendered production and distribution of goods and resources by establishing

a link between household production, transnational media corporations, and financial

institutions. The media companies that produce the commodities of the Suze Orman brand

are owned by transnational corporations. For example, the publishers Spiegel and Grauare

and Three Rivers Press are both owned by Random House, which belongs to Bertelsmann.

Random House also publishes the CDs. The Suze Orman Show is broadcast on CNBC, which

is owned by NBCUniversal, which belongs to General Electric (GE) and Comcast. Orman

writes a column for O Magazine, which is owned by Hearst Corporation. General Electric is

also the underwriter of the long-term policy that Orman once sold on QVC (Fabrikant 2006).

To transnational corporations, the most important stakeholders are the major

shareholders. Investment banks, mutual funds, and insurance companies own the majority

of the shares of these publicly-traded companies. For GE, more than half of the company

stocks are owned by investment banks and mutual funds.3 GE also offers financial services

to the aviation and medical sectors as well as credit cards to consumers. Investment books

for women conceptualise the financial market as an autonomous entity. In reality,

institutions of finance are closely related to those of the consumer market and the labour

market.

The intimate relationship between productive capital and finance capital illustrates

the financialisation of the US economy. An implication is that wealth does not “trickle

down” to the workers who produce surplus value. Wealth is re-invested in order to create

more wealth. The financialisation of economy has class and gender implications (Singh and

Zammit 2000). In an economic downturn, women in both developed and undeveloped

countries find themselves worse off because the elimination of publicly-funded social

services burdens women with more household responsibilities and because a flexible

accumulation of capital asks women to provide additional income for the family

(Aslanbeigui and Summerfield 2000; Benerıa et al. 2000; Floro, Tornqvist, and Tas 2009;

Singh and Zammit 2000).

However, it is naıve to assume all women are victims of a financial downturn. Elson

and Cagatay (2000) show how women’s productive and reproductive work in both wealthy

and non-wealthy households is structured by international finance. A simplified version is

reproduced in Figure 1.

Figure 1 shows that the wealthy households do not rely on employment for income;

instead they generate income from owning financial assets. The wealthy households use

few public services and pay few taxes. They hire help, mostly women, to provide

reproductive duties from cooking to cleaning, from raising children to educating them. To

the majority of households, their income comes from employment. They also engage in

subsistence production and unpaid labour.

280 MICKY LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Investment books for women are written for those in non-wealthy households. The

readers are assumed to derive their income from employment, and are assumed to not

have personal financial advisors. The readers are advised to act more like men and women

in wealthy households in order to achieve financial security and independence.

The means of income differentiates women who have assets from those who do not.

Real social relations are constructed by capital flow: the consumption of media

commodities by non-wealthy women indirectly subsidises wealthy households through the

latter’s ownership of stocks; only those who own stocks benefit from the financial

performance of transnational corporations, which in turn depends on the mass

consumption of commodities. The emphasis on consumption in a capitalist society

however masks real social relations. Whilst women from wealthy households are able to

afford professional financial advice, those from non-wealthy households buy the

commodified information that is personified by financial gurus. The media have provided

a platform for celebrity advisors to share their sage with a mass audience. The personable

tone of these celebrity advisors, their life stories, and their advice to the call-in audience all

create an illusion that the mass audience is receiving individualised and tailor-made advice.

Figure 1

Social reproduction and international finance (adapted from Elson and Cagatay 2000)

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Conclusion

The 2008 financial crisis is predicted to make a long-term impact on the US and the

global economy. How the crisis has transformed gender relations has yet to be studied.

Grounded in historical materialism, a feminist political economy aims to examine how

gender and class relations evolve in the trajectory of capitalism. Because capitalism is an

inherently contradictory system, capitalists need to displace the problem of stagnation

elsewhere. Gender and finance are two “solutions.” In this paper, a feminist political

economic approach to communication is applied to unveil the gender relations presented

in popular books on investment for women. A discourse analysis was conducted to deduce

themes of gender ideology embedded in the literature. It is found that women are asked

to solve the problems they encounter in a patriarchal household by participating in the

financial market. The financial market is seen as a sometimes gender-neutral, sometimes

masculine domain which protects women from financial uncertainty. Little has been made

known of the evolution of the financial market, and of the relationship between

productive capital and finance capital. A feminist political economic approach does not

stop at the level of textual analysis. This paper proceeds to contextualise the discourse of

popular financial literature by linking the commodification of financial information to the

gendered production and distribution of goods and resources. Popular investment books

are commodities manufactured for consumption. As intangible and non-exhaustive goods,

financial advice has to be packaged as goods of use value. Brand differentiation, multi-

platform delivery, and creation of niche markets are three tactics employed by

transnational companies. Finally, this paper establishes a link between women in wealthy

and non-wealthy households vis-a-vis the consumer, financial, and labour markets. It is

argued that women who consume popular literature on investment indirectly subsidise

wealthy households. The inclusion of women as consumers is a strategy to maximise the

profits of transnational corporations, and large profit margins in turn attract investors’

capital.

Although communication scholars have written about various aspects of the financial

markets, they have not yet adopted a gender lens. It is hoped that this study has filled a

void. To further critique the gendered political economic nature of the financial media and

its relation to transnational media corporations and financial institutions, empirical and

interpretive studies need to be conducted on: (1) women investors and consumers of

financial media; (2) a historical analysis of the development of financial media; (3) as implied

in (2), a historical analysis of the development of the audience market for financial media;

and (4) the gendered relationship between transnational media companies and financial

institutions.

NOTES

1. According to the US Census, the upper limit income of the bottom 20 percent of the

population was US$19,886 and US$22,320 in 1990 and 2000, respectively.

2. About Suze. Suze Orman. http://www.suzeorman.com/igsbase/igstemplate.cfm?SRC¼

SP&SRCN¼ layout_aboutsuze&GnavID¼2. Last accessed November 27, 2011.

3. Major holders. General Electric Company. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s¼GEþMajorþ

Holders. Last accessed November 27, 2011.

282 MICKY LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

REFERENCES

ARRIGHI, GIOVANNI. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times.

New York: Verso.

ASLANBEIGUI, NAHID, AND GALE SUMMERFIELD. 2000. “The Asian Crisis, Gender, and the International

Financial Architecture.” Feminist Economics 6 (3): 81–103.

ASSASSI, LIBBY. 2009. The Gendering of Global Finance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

BACH, DAVID. 2002. Smart Women Finish Rich: 9 Steps to Achieving Financial Security and Funding

Your Dreams. 2nd ed. New York: Broadway Books.

BENERIA, LOURDES, MARIA FLORO, CAREN GROWN, AND MARTHA MACDONALD. 2000. “Introduction:

Globalization and Gender.” Feminist Economics 6 (7): vii–xviii.

BODNAR, JANET. 2006. Money Smart Women: Everything You Need to Know to Achieve a Lifetime of

Financial Security. Chicago, IL: Kaplan.

BRAM, THURSDAY. 2012. “The Impact of Financial Crisis on Women.” SFGate.com, March 12. http://

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f¼/g/a/2012/03/12/investopedia75262.DTL.

BRIDGFORTH, GLINDA, AND GAIL PERRY-MASON. 2003. Girl, Make Your Money Grow! A Sister’s Guide to

Protecting Your Future and Enriching Your Life. New York: Harlem Moon and Broadway

Books.

CHAKRAVARTTY, PAULA, AND DAN SCHILLER. 2010. “Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in

Crisis.” International Journal of Communication 4: 670–92.

CLARK, GORDON L., NIGEL THRIFT, AND ADAM TICKELL. 2004. “Performing Finance: The Industry, the

Media and its Image.” Review of International Political Economy 11 (2): 289–310.

CORNER, JOHN. 1998. “Television News and Economic Exposition.” In The Economy, Media and

Public Knowledge, edited by Neil T. Gavin, 53 –70. London: Leicester University Press.

DAVIS, GERALD. 2009. Managed by the Markets: How Finance Reshaped America. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

DOYLE, GILLIAN. 2006. “Financial News Journalism: A Post-Enron Analysis of Approaches Towards

Economic and Financial News Production in the UK.” Journalism 7 (4): 433–52.

ELSON, DIANE, AND NILUFER CAGATAY. 2000. “The Social Content of Macroeconomic Policies.” World

Development 28 (7): 1347–64.

FABRIKANT, GERALDINE. 2006. “Cleaning Up Messes, Friend to Friend.” New York Times, March 5: B5.

FLORO, MARIA, AND GARY DYMSKI. 2000. “Financial Crisis, Gender, and Power: An Analytical

Framework.” World Development 28 (7): 1269–83.

FLORO, MARIA, ANNIKA TORNQVIST, AND EMSET O. TAS. 2009. The Impact of the Economic Crisis on

Women’s Economic Empowerment. Swedish: International Development Agency.

FOSTER, BELLAMY JOHN, AND FRED MAGDOFF. 2009. The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and

Consequences. New York: Monthly Review Press.

FREEMAN, MARK, ROBIN PEARSON, AND JAMES TAYLOR. 2009. “Between Madam Bubble and Kitty

Lorimer: Women Investors in British and Irish Stock Companies.” In Women and Their

Money: Essays on Women and Finance, edited by Anne Laurence, Josephine Maltby, and

Janette Rutterford, 95–114. London: Routledge.

GIDDENS, ANTHONY. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

GREENFIELD, CATHY, AND PETER WILLIAMS. 2001. “Finance Advertising and Media Rhetoric.” Southern

Review 34 (2): 44–66.

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 283

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

GREENFIELD, CATHY, PETER WILLIAMS, AND CATHY BEADNELL. 2004. “The Rise and Rise of Journalism

Pertaining to Finance.” In When Journalism Meets History: Refereed Papers from the

Australian Media Traditions Conference, 143–9. Melbourne, Victoria: RMIT Publishing.

GUNELIUS, SUSAN. 2008. “Oprah Winfrey Gives Suze Orman’s Book a Boost.” Women on Business,

February 17. http://www.womenonbusiness.com/oprah-winfrey-gives-suze-ormans-

book-a-boost/.

HARTSOCK, NANCY C. M. 1983. Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism.

New York: Longman.

HARVEY, DAVID. 1982. The Limits to Capital. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

HARVEY, DAVID. 2010. The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

HENRY, NANCY. 2007. “‘Ladies Do It?’ Victorian Women Investors in Fact and Fiction.” In Victorian

Literature and Finance, edited by Francis O’Gorman, 111–31. New York: Oxford University

Press.

KIRKLAND, WENDY, AND VIRGINIA MCCULLOUGH. 2009. Option Trading in Your Spare Time: A Guide to

Financial Independence for Women. Naperville, IL: Sphinx.

KIYOSAKI, KIM. 2006. Rich Woman: A Book on Investing for Women. Scottsdale, AZ: Rich Press.

KRIPPNER, GRETA R. 2011. Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

LAURENCE, ANNE. 2009. “Women and Finance in Eighteenth-Century England.” In Women and Their

Money: Essays on Women and Finance, edited by Anne Laurence, Josephine Maltby, and

Janette Rutterford, 30–2. London: Routledge.

LAURENCE, ANNE, JOSEPHINE MALTBY, AND JANETTE RUTTERFORD. 2009. “Introduction.” In Women and

Their Money: Essays on Women and Finance, edited by Anne Laurence, Josephine Maltby,

and Janette Rutterford, 1–29. London: Routledge.

LEE, MICKY. 2011. “A Feminist Political Economy of Communication.” Feminist Media Studies 11 (1):

83–7.

LEYSHON, ANDREW, AND NIGEL THRIFT. 1997. Money/Space: Geographies of Monetary Transformation.

New York: Routledge.

LOFTON, LOUANN. 2011. Warren Buffett Invests Like a Girl: And Why You Should, Too. New York:

Harper.

MARTINEZ, KEVIN. 2012. “Study Shows Harmful Impact of Economic Crisis on California’s Women.”

World Socialist Web Site, February 17. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/cali-f17.

shtml.

MARX, KARL, ([1894] 1999) Capital Vol. III. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/

index.htm.

MORRIS, VIRGINIA B., AND KENNETH M. MORRIS. 2003. A Woman’s Guide to Investing. New York:

Lightbulb Press.

MOSCO, VINCENT. 2009. The Political Economy of Communication. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

MS. FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN. 2011. “New Poll: Economic Crisis Still Affects Majority of Americans,

Impact on Women Especially Severe.”, Press Release, May 4, Brooklyn, NY.

NEWTON, LUCY A., PHILIP L. COTTRELL, JOSEPHINE MALTBY, AND JANETTE RUTTERFORD. 2009. “Women and

Wealth: The 19th Century in Great Britain.” In Women and Their Money: Essays on Women

and Finance, edited by Anne Laurence, Josephine Maltby, and Janette Rutterford, 86–94.

London: Routledge.

ORMAN, SUZE. 2007. Women and Money: Owning the Power to Control Your Destiny. New York:

Spiegel and Grau.

284 MICKY LEE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4

PORTER, TONY. 2005. Globalization and Finance. Cambridge: Polity.

RIORDAN, ELLEN. 2002. “Intersections and New Directions: On Feminism and Political Economy.” In

Sex and Money: Feminism and Political Economy in the Media, edited by Eileen Meehan, and

Ellen Riordan, 3–15. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

RUTTERFORD, JANETTE, AND JOSEPHINE MALTBY. 1914. “‘The Widow, the Clergyman and the Reckless’:

Women Investors in England, 1830–1914.” Feminist Economics 12 (12): 111–38.

SINGH, AJIT, AND ANN ZIMMIT. 2000. “International Capital Flows: Identifying the Gender Dimension.”

World Development 28 (7): 1249–68.

STRANGE, SUSAN. 1988. States and Markets: An Introduction to International Political Economy.

New York: Basil Blackwell.

SUTTLES, GERALD D. 2010. Front Page Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

TAMBINI, DAMIAN. 2010. “What are Financial Journalists For?” Journalism Studies 11 (2): 158–74.

VAN STAVEREN, IRENE. 2002. “Global Finance and Gender.” In Civil Society and Global Finance, edited

by Jan Aart Schoste, and Albrecht Schnabel, 228–46. London: Routledge.

WALL STREET JOURNAL. 2001. “These Investment Books Aren’t for the Beach.” August 30: C1.

Micky Lee (PhD Oregon) is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Suffolk University,

Boston. She has published more than a dozen journal articles on feminist political

economy; telecommunications; new information and communication technologies;

and media, information, and finance. E-mail: mickycheers@yahoo.com

WOMEN AND INVESTMENT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA 285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

4:59

31

Oct

ober

201

4