|
Helsing posted:So, for instance, with second wave feminism you eventually started to have cracks emerging where queer or racialized women were basically being ignored and exploited by white middle class feminists. That just seems pragmatic, though. Broadening the goals of feminism would have diluted their message and efforts -- accomplishing a narrow goal is hard enough. It's suicide for a movement to try to be all things to all people. I get that people felt betrayed, but "you didn't listen to us" is a pretty goddamn tame form of exploitation. That's like the minimum level of ruthlessness required for any leader to succeed. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 6, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Arguing that all women should have rights, including women of color or LBT women, is hardly diluting a feminist message or trying to be all things to all people. How would they have done that without incorporating institutional racism and gender essentialism into their message? Those issues are hard enough to tackle today. Second-wave feminists walked a narrow line between pursuing radical goals and becoming objects of ridicule. I don't blame them any more than I blame MLK for ignoring gay rights. This is what I don't get about intersectionality -- it describes a real phenomenon, but it doesn't get you any closer to solving the problem, because successful movements always focus on a single axis of privilege. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:You're going to have to convince me that allowing Ida B. Wells to fully participate in a suffrage march would have "incorporated institutional racism." That seems more like outright racism than a strategic choice, though. If there were outspoken racists in second-wave feminism, then I condemn them too. But the strategic choice -- committing yourself completely to one cause -- doesn't make you a racist. Sharkie posted:Describing a problem is often the first step in solving it! When, exactly, should anti-racist movements pretend black women aren't women, and when should feminist movements pretend some women aren't black? Black women are burdened by race, by gender, and by being black women, a burden that comes from the intersection of these forces. See this article for example. I'm also not convinced that successful movements always focus on a single axis of privilege: let's not forget the role women played in the Russian revolution, for example. Could you quote the parts of that article that discuss practical solutions for discrimination against black women specifically? Like, it seems obvious that, just as an intersectional problem arises from separate problems, an intersectional solution also arises from separate solutions. It doesn't seem like the Russian Revolution had any lasting success in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This is it in a nutshell. It's good and progress to see people cop out like this and look weak, over and over again. You should really think about why you frame morality in such strongly masculinzed terms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Looks like you're the problem for assuming strength is masculine. Why is strength good?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Gosh it's almost like the idiomatic phrase "gaggle of gooks" is totally distinct from "g__k" in isolation, or something! It's not an idiomatic phrase, what the gently caress is wrong with you? Are you thinking of "gaggle of geese"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:It sure was growing up in my experience. I didn't learn "gook" was a mutation of a Korean term which was a racist slur against southeast Asians until I was in my teens, and only then, it was a term used in isolation or a specific context. Here's your reference -- all 101 occurrences of "gaggle of gooks" on the public internet, and they all look pretty racist. Feel free to provide a reference of your own, but right now you sound like my racist-rear end grandmother saying that it wasn't at all a problem to call brazil nuts "friend of the family toes". Space Whale posted:Flock of fuckers, happy? If that's an implicit concession that "gaggle of gooks" is kinda hosed up, then sure. The ability to admit when you're wrong is kinda critical to dialogue!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:If I had apologized and been contrite to the point of tears it would be seen as weakness and gotten just as many new claws out, though. Look, take a second and think about how this comes across. You're unwilling to admit you're wrong just because somebody might be a dick to you. If somebody is a dick to you, that's on them. But admitting you're wrong -- that's on you. If you want to have a useful conversation, that is the price of admission.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Acting like I need to kowtow to people who look for poo poo to point and fuss over who aren't even the possible target of a "hurtful word" is kinda bs though. Did someone say this? All you need to do is stop defending it. If someone brings it up again, just say "yes, I already said that was hosed up and I regret it," and leave it at that. I agreed with a lot of what you said earlier in this thread, but you really don't want to stop digging.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:I'm not defending the g-word, I'm criticizing the concept that I owe a drat thing to people hunting for slips to point out and attack people over. Is it possible for someone to call you out without "hunting for slips"? Like, do you realize you're shutting out dissent, just like in the McGill article? When someone says you're wrong, you are attacking their motive instead of the substance of their argument. You are insulating yourself from the truth. If you want a discussion that's about the truth, and not just about scoring rhetorical points, sometimes you have to be the bigger person.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Oh, I'm an rear end in a top hat. I've been formed, forged, quenched, tempered, ground, and honed into an rear end in a top hat. The chips on my shoulder have fine edges. I will own up to that. You're really talking out both sides of your mouth here. On one side, words are just words, and shouldn't be policed. On the other side, you acknowledge the power of language -- you don't want to "kowtow," and you're afraid (no judgment here) of being verbally attacked. I think you have some major cognitive dissonance about the importance of words.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Qwazes posted:My family was really into gay marriage rights in Massachusetts back in 2000~2006 (i.e. until it passed, and all attempts to overturn it were crushed), so I don't really have much respect for people who endlessly complain about injustice but don't try to do anything. My father worked for 2-3 hours phone-banking every Tuesday night for years, my mother less frequently, and sometimes I mailed some letters (I was 6-12, so sue me). I was basically the mascot for the main Massequality brach, about a 5 minute walk from the state house We all went to every constitutional convention. After every vote, my dad and I would tour the state house and give bags of candy to people who supported the cause. The number of votes pro gay marriage in the MA legislature started at 33, and in just four years went to over 150. I don't know if it had anything to do with privilege, and I know we came in at the tail end of a decades-long campaign, but it still makes me think that anyone saying the only possible solution is violent revolution is just wrong. I had a recent discussion with a good friend about whether gay marriage legalization was a good thing for the country. She posited it was morally neutral at best because the movement didn't do enough for trans rights, and several Occupy-affiliated people agreed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is loving stupid and exactly why the one guy was saying we need to stop bringing one issue into discussion of other issues. Of course, to really destroy the gender binary for good, you have to overthrow capitalism 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Focusing on those disadvantaged on multiples axes (gay women of color for instance) and addressing their issues will then logically raise those who are only disadvantaged on one axis as well. However, focusing only one one axis at a time (even if they happen to be one where a lot of injustice is being done) would result in some people falling by the wayside. I don't get this. If the issues are unique to gay women of color, nobody else benefits. If they're not unique and are instead shared with women, gay people, and people of color, then addressing even one of those axes will still benefit gay women of color.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Biomute posted:Basically, if you focus on the issues facing "poor gay black trans women" you'll address the the issues of gay people, black people, trans people, poor people and women, as well as those special issues that can arise in the intersection between these axes. What does it look like, policy-wise, to focus on issues faced by poor gay black trans women? I don't understand how that can be solved without breaking it down into single-axis problems. Biomute posted:If the main focus is "women" the special issues facing those who exist in the intersection will never be addressed and the focus is more likely to be on the majority (white women). "Never" seems a little strong -- would "not immediately" suffice? As long as it doesn't rule out later efforts, it seems like simple utilitarianism to prioritize the smallest changes that help the most people, e.g. gay marriage. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 18:57
|
|