The article gets so close to fully getting it but then misses the point in an attempt to identify a common enemy.
White male privilege was the bribe that was given to the group in exchange of accepting a shit deal (being a worker under capitalism) as long as that group helped enforce an even shitier deal to the rest.
Now that bribe is gone, so it’s actually a shittier deal than before (similar to what everyone else has, maybe worse cause of the stigma).
Men aren’t thinking, oh what’s the ideal solution. They are thinking, we did the right thing and agreed on equal rights, but you (feminism) didn’t fix the shit deal, so I don’t want more of your solution.
Imo, the solution to the shit deal wasn’t feminism, it was socialism (which includes equal rights for all humans).
I think this is by design, the owners knew feminism wouldn’t change their system of oppression much, so they let that one go through and crushed socialism in the process.
I think this is by design, the owners knew feminism wouldn’t change their system of oppression much, so they let that one go through and crushed socialism in the process.
This was definitely the strategy and it wasn’t an acceptance of feminism but a much limited feminist rights. These were limited to the rights to vote and work from other rich white families (i.e. from their own wives and daughters.) . From the earliest days feminism included socialistic elements with many of same people interacting in much in the same way civil right organization had socialist elements. The powers at be simple found the easiest path and did it. Moreover, they tried to highlight the most extreme man hating elements to isolate men from joining the cause.
it’s wild to me how many people think socialism and feminism are somehow at odds rather than exactlyein lock step, two aspects of dissolving the torture that’s inflicted through all of the hegemony. we want to dissolve the hierarchies of gender, race, class, and nationalities and create a society where everyone celebrates each other. feminism, socialism, integration, and solidarity are all the same goddamn movement. none of them are distractions from eachother. they’re all different sets of messaging to help reach people where they are.
I get why its difficult to understand at both because the systems in place force a scarcity mindset where everything is “either or” and its never “both”. Once you start thinking in an abundance mindset and see that the restrictions are artificial a whole world of differences appear. Once the veil is lifted for aspect everything comes clearer. You can see this in why the Patriarchy fights all of the movements because they know to they are the same behind the scenes. Its obvious once you start studying the history of feminism, queer rights and civil rights that the same people had similar ideas and were inspired by similar ideas and methods. But it takes some time to look through what you are told is a “natural system”. So natural that it needs constant propaganda to support it
but you (feminism) didn’t fix the shit deal,
I’m just curious where feminists are in power. Maybe in some nordic countries - but than again those have rather high living standard and economical equality. Big corporations pandering to LGBT and co, does not really count.
Feminism has a lot of narrative power, and the whole middle management not just of individual companies but society as a whole is, by now, female-dominated.
If you’re getting laid off chances are a women wrote the reports that the layoff was based on, and a woman is signing off on your severance package. You go to the dole office and – yep, a woman works your case. Chances also aren’t too terrible that, above the layer of the predominantly male C-suite, there’s an heiress to the empire because generational capital accumulation doesn’t discriminate.
So, in a nutshell: Much feminist messaging can easily come across as HR telling a male truck driver “our boss is a man, therefore, you’re fired”.
Whether that power base can actually be, realistically, mobilised, is another topic. I guess academia in principle serves the place for middle management that unions play among workers but it’s a tough cookie no matter which side you look at. Doubly fucked in places like the US where middle management is even more prone to the temporarily embarrassed billionaire fantasy. And somehow I ended up at class analysis. Honestly, wasn’t intentional.
What do you mean by female-dominated and do you assume that every women is a feminist?
If you’re getting laid off chances are a women wrote the reports that the layoff was based on, and a woman is signing off on your severance package. You go to the dole office and – yep, a woman works your case. Chances also aren’t too terrible that, above the layer of the predominantly male C-suite, there’s an heiress to the empire because generational capital accumulation doesn’t discriminate.
So, in a nutshell: Much feminist messaging can easily come across as HR telling a male truck driver “our boss is a man, therefore, you’re fired”.
Whether that power base can actually be, realistically, mobilised, is another topic. I guess academia in principle serves the place for middle management that unions play among workers but it’s a tough cookie no matter which side you look at. Doubly fucked in places like the US where middle management is even more prone to the temporarily embarrassed billionaire fantasy. And somehow I ended up at class analysis. Honestly, wasn’t intentional.
Sorry it might very well be my bad English, but I don’t get your point at all.
