(cache) Thank God For Identity Politics : FemmeThoughts

Thank God For Identity Politics (theestablishment.co)

FixinThePlanetone boob at a time が 1日前投稿

全 101 件のコメント

[–]ascasco 34 ポイント35 ポイント36 ポイント 1日前 (85子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 18 ポイント19 ポイント20 ポイント 1日前 (2子コメント)

Agree. "Identity Politics" quits being useful to us on the left the moment it stops being subversive. It's a tremendously valuable tool for fighting back against discrimination against marginalized and oppressed groups within our society, it just doesn't dismantle the way in which that discrimination asserts itself.

I was just listening to Dr. Harriet Fraad here, talking about how the co-optation of the Women's Liberation Movement by the ruling class, made it so that it only focused on gender. That was 'safe' for the ruling class, it didn't question nor demand the changing of the system as a whole, merely inclusion within the oppressive parameters of the system.

The other day I saw a tweet from a Trans friend of mine saying that we should fight the Republicans because they want to make it harder for Trans people to serve in the military. We should fight against anyone who would bar Trans people from any potential job, while simultaneously remembering that the military is an oppressive institution, it's a tool of imperialist oppression, and workers of one country have no business going abroad and killing the workers of another country. None of these wars are our wars and they're not being fought for any of us, and if we recognize that, shouldn't we try to smash these oppressive institutions rather than fighting to be part of them?

There are plenty of articles on this topic. "Transgender Troops" Should Be an Oxymoron ; Queer Anti-Capitalism: What’s Left of Lesbian and Gay Liberation?; The Roots of Gay Oppression.

A passage from the first article is very succinct on the matter:

It's no surprise that both the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National LGBTQ Task Force, the nation's two largest LGBT lobbying groups, immediately hailed the news that the Pentagon would soon welcome trans soldiers. These are two organizations that have spearheaded the conservative shift in LGBT politics over the last several decades, which became most noticeable in the early 1990s, when gay inclusion in the US military became the central issue for gay establishment struggle. The militaristic status quo in LGBT politics has only become more pronounced as the mainstream LGBT agenda has centered on access to marriage as the only means to obtain basic resources that should be available to all, such as housing, health care and the right to stay in this country (or leave) if you want to. Even when speaking about anti-queer and anti-trans violence, an issue that arguably affects most queer and trans people, LGBT powerbrokers call for strengthening the racist, classist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic legal system through hate crimes legislation.

TL;DR We should not allow any State apparatus/institutions to discriminate against people based on gender/sexuality/race/disability/etc, as this sustains and perpetuates the cultural/personal discrimination against these same peoples. We must go farther than that and dismantle those apparatus/institutions if we recognise them as being inherently oppressive in their function.

[–]ascasco 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 17時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]doomparrot42 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 17時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]alyraptor 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 18時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]ascasco 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 17時間前 (8子コメント)

[–]alyraptor 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 11時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Galentines_day -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 17時間前* (6子コメント)

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント10 ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

Instead you guys only care to protect them when it fits your anti capitalist narrative.

Yo I'm not a socialist but I'm pretty sure protection of marginalized groups always fits an anti capitalist narrative.

I don't enjoy reading communist comments on Reddit because they seem very simplistic and to ignore the real world, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with them on many points.

You get really really angry at socialists here and it feels like you can't fathom them being feminist at the same time.

Why do you think an anti-capitalist narrative is anti-feminist? Why do you think feminists can't be socialist? Why do you think winning within a terrible system is better than dismantling the whole system?

There's a reason why feminism now tries to break gender roles down entirely instead of telling women to be like men and compete on the level of men. Why is it so hard to expand that dismantling to the entire way in which an unequal society is maintained?

[–]ascasco 12 ポイント13 ポイント14 ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖[M] 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 17時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Galentines_day 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 16時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖[M] 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]dratthecookies 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 8時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]ascasco 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 7時間前 (1子コメント)

I don't disagree that it's helpful - I technically can't disagree because the increased visibility of trans people has directly benefitted me. The problem is that these things won't actually end sexism or transphobia (or racism, ableism, etc.) In fact it can be argued that they increase it (not something I believe, but I've seen the argument).

As a Marxist, I understand that identity oppression stems from class oppression. I'm not saying that we should wait to worry about identity issues until after "the revolution". What I am saying is that we can't solve identity issues without centering the economic class violence which causes them.

Black people being murdered by cops can't be solved by more black police officers. Better wages and maternity leave for women can't be granted by more women CEOs. This is the problem with liberal identity politics. They don't understand the material reasons for oppression, and instead think that adding a few 'token minorities' is enough to redress the issue. As it turns out, people within a group don't have inherent allegience to each other. A black cop can be just as anti-black as a white cop, and a woman CEO can be just as sexist as a man (especially if the laws are racist and if maternity leave cuts into profits).

[–]dratthecookies 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 22時間前* (21子コメント)

[–]Aunquemespereldolor 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 16時間前 (5子コメント)

Well anarchists and communists don't seem to get anything significant done that I can see so I guess I'll go ahead and be liberal till their damn revolution finally gets here.

I'm actually surprised to find you writing that, you usually say that you are always trying to learn and recognize the struggles of others.

Anarchists and communists are always trying to get significant things done, their projects are usually destroyed though, or erased from media and history. You also seem to think that there's a divide between letting the people at the bottom gasp for air and revolution, but where do you draw the line in something like Rojava? or in any other instance of revolutionary activity? where in the town of Marinaleda in south Spain?

Another thing, You think you can wait for revolution, as if revolution was a sudden event and not a lengthy process born out of different and distant projects, or think that the failure of a project is always total and nothing inherits its momentum to continue and build up future resistances and achievements (anarchist Catalonia still lives on in the okupa movement, the only hope for a lot of people that would otherwise go homeless, for example, that's a gasp for air), but the thing is that you are already part of a revolutionary momentum, everytime you fight for feminism, and if one day you are ready to claim your part in it you could potentially give out more of what you already are, by being aware of how in the distance many of your efforts are being lost. You could also stop seeing revolution as a permanent and static change to see it more as an informed and interconnected (intersectional) process of change, one that doesn't want to leave capitalism intact to assume a human nature from there.

I know that some anarchist and communists are really frustrating, most I find in my country are, but it's more effective to oppose/inform them from within the fight against capitalism, which is a must for liberation.

I hope offered you a better perspective.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 15時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]Aunquemespereldolor 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 15時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 14時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Aunquemespereldolor 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 14時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Cyclone_1Anarcho-Communist / Sociologist / Feminist 19 ポイント20 ポイント21 ポイント 16時間前* (1子コメント)

Well anarchists and communists don't seem to get anything significant done that I can see so I guess I'll go ahead and be liberal till their damn revolution finally gets here.

What a deeply saddening comment and outlook on communism and anarchism that is. Not to mention a complete misread or misunderstanding of history.

Communists and Anarchists were a significant part of the Labor Movement for starters so I think you're underselling their overall contribution a bit there and I think you're kind of underselling activism overall even if you don't mean to.

Also, even if you ideologically disagree with communism and anarchism which is fine, I guess, you have to at the very least appreciate the fact that the existence of communists and anarchists pulls conversation to the "left" than it would without them. If you give either ideology no more credit than that, I would argue you should give them/us that much. Still, it would be short-changing both communists and anarchists but, damn, you don't seem to find any utility in them whatsoever.

The single greatest obstacle to radicals, leftists, anti-capitalists, etc has been liberals and liberalism so you remaining "liberal" until "their damn revolution finally gets here" you're actually preventing it from getting here.

I'm not comfortable asking people at the bottom of the social totem pole to suffer because a few people argue that incremental improvements aren't good enough. Maybe the left needs a more convincing product besides rhetoric.

Fair enough. I think incremental progress is better than nothing, I really do. But I think we shouldn't become complacent with anything while we live under capitalism nor should people be made to feel as though asking for more isn't "pragmatic" or "realistic". Those retorts from liberals to others on "the left" really undermine activism and liberals echo those sentiments when it is "their team" in power/office or "their team" being criticized all of the damn time.

I'm just a bit frustrated at the constant refrain of "that's actually still part of the problem" without any solutions offered

The solution is for people to stop being "liberal" and think that's good enough and demand more. We need to move beyond complacency together. We need a lot more of us to demand a lot more from power. Don't undersell the power of activism/direct action. It's messy, it can get devalued, and the struggle never ends but it is of the utmost importance to people outside of systems of power and it is the only way in which citizens have gotten real, substantive, change.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ascasco 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 17時間前 (4子コメント)

Godeliva did a lot of the heavy lifting for me, but I do wanna at least do the courtesy of responding to you. The thing is, that "it's actually still part of the problem" is not itself a solution. That thing about more women CEOs.. who does that benefit? It doesn't benefit women as a whole, and it definitely doesn't benefit women at the bottom of the ladder.

And this is actually what the core of my point is - liberal identity politics doesn't care about people at the bottom. If it did, it would center classism in its discourse. The opposite has happened though, class violence has been completely hidden from view. Instead, liberal identity politics is only concerned with inclusivity within the oppressive system. "Let black people and LGBT folk be oppressors too," essentially.

Identity politics are useful in that they accurately express how individuals suffer oppression based on their identity. It is not useful in that it provides a solution (because it doesn't). You see that black people in America are disproportionately targeted by police, the solution isn't to "have more black police." It's ironically racist, because it assumes black people won't oppress each other; it assumes they're one cohesive group all with the same interests. In reality, solution would be to radically reform the system into something different, or to destroy it altogether.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 15時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]ascasco 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 15時間前 (2子コメント)

No problem! :))

As for rhetorical ways to convince people... it's hard to say. Each person is going to be different, I think. I'd say generally you need some kind of Marxist critique (aka, an anti-capitalist critique that's grounded in materialist analysis). I myself am not in favor of reform because the problems are too fundamental, and reforms can be undone easily, but I mention it because I know many folks think it's a good idea.

The best thing you probably can do is to study more and more. If you haven't read Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici, I highly recommend it. It's a book which details the rise of capitalism from the standpoint of women and it is arguably one of the most important communist books you could ever read.

I know "just read more" feels like a non-answer, partly because it really isn't an answer, but personally I feel like the more I read, the more expansive my thought process is and the more capable I am of diagnosing the problems in society and therefore finding solutions. You experience might differ, though.

Also, if it doesn't bother you too much, I would recommend looking at the sidebar of /r/communism101. I totally understand why online leftist spaces would make you uncomfortable - I can think of several reasons why off the top of my head - but they are useful if you're just mining for resources. Definitely a really important step in me learning about Marxism was when I followed a bunch of communists on Tumblr but didn't interact with them, just read their posts. Just being a spectator helped.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 15時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]ascasco 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]GodelivaMarxist-Feminist 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 18時間前 (7子コメント)

Well anarchists and communists don't seem to get anything significant done that I can see so I guess I'll go ahead and be liberal till their damn revolution finally gets here.

You don't consider the Naxalites in your country to be getting anything significant done? Aren't they fighting for the liberation of the tribals, the untouchables, the farmers and the workers? What about the YPJ in Rojava, the women-only military arm of the Kurdish forces, along with YPG and PKK being one of the few actively fighting and beating ISIS? They're anarchists and communists.

I'm not comfortable asking people at the bottom of the social totem pole to suffer because a few people argue that incremental improvements aren't good enough. Maybe the left needs a more convincing product besides rhetoric.

Good thing none of us are asking for that... We're not accelerationists. We just don't want the fight back to have that small incremental change as the only goal of the movement, which Liberals are content to do. Reforms can be ignored, evaded, weakened and repealed. It's what happened to the New Deal in the US, it's what happens with the most fundamental gains of our liberation as women. How else can things like bodily autonomy and reproductive rights still be up for debate and get challenged over and over? I don't know about you but when you get old you get tired of having to push a rock up a hill just so that it rolls down again. That's why I support permanent change.

I'm just a bit frustrated at the constant refrain of "that's actually still part of the problem" without any solutions offered.

Plenty of solutions if you know where to look for them. If you spent just a second reading anything any socialist thinker has ever written you would find plenty.

This is also not a personal attack but I'm tired of liberals who make straw arguments just because they can't be bothered to check and see what the actual position and solutions are that the rev leftists are bringing up.

[–]ascasco 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 17時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 18時間前 (4子コメント)

You don't consider the Naxalites in your country to be getting anything significant done? Aren't they fighting for the liberation of the tribals, the untouchables, the farmers and the workers?

I have complicated thoughts about them. I think they're right to fight, but I don't think they're succeeding, if that's what you're asking.

I don't know about you but when you get old you get tired of having to push a rock up a hill just so that it rolls down again. That's why I support permanent change.

I don't think incremental change is very effective either. I also think that permanent change has exactly zero appeal to most people because they don't think that way.

Plenty of solutions if you know where to look for them. If you spent just a second reading anything any socialist thinker has ever written you would find plenty.

Possibly. Who'd want to, though?

[–]GodelivaMarxist-Feminist 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 17時間前 (3子コメント)

I also think that permanent change has exactly zero appeal to most people because they don't think that way.

I don't have the qualification to make a blanket judgement on how people think. But I do think that in practical terms having one big fight and being forever finished is better than fighting the same struggle every couple of years. Do you ever wonder why we have to keep fighting it? What it is that gives fuel to reaction? Who benefits from discriminating against women or exploiting women in the home? The system.

Who'd want to, though?

If you want to be anti-intellectual that's your issue, but please don't spread disinformation if you can't be bothered. It's no different than when people make straw arguments of our movement and when you tell them to read they say "who'd want to?"

It's not a very good thing to have an ignorant person in a position of power.

I don't think incremental change is very effective either.

Then why are we arguing? Can't we do all of the above?

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]LadyCailin 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 14時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]GodelivaMarxist-Feminist 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

That's because of incremental change over the past 200 years, not because of anarchy and communism.

It's because of abolitionists and the Civil War. Violent revolution of a system from Slave Society to Capitalism. So yeah no anarchists or communists there... you got me, they didn't exist yet.

I never said communism or anarchy (same thing by the way as they are both stateless, classless, moneyless socio-economic systems, unless you mean Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism), are a magic solution. But if you leave the Capitalist system intact you cannot do away with the systemic oppression of women for the reproductive, emotional and domestic labor. Please watch this lecture the transcript was included by another member.

It is a solution to a lot of these problems and/or provides for a better framework to address these problems because it doesn't require us to go through a top-down hierarchical structure of power through wealth.

[–]Caelrie -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 10時間前 (0子コメント)

Good thing none of us are asking for that... We're not accelerationists. We just don't want the fight back to have that small incremental change as the only goal of the movement, which Liberals are content to do. Reforms can be ignored, evaded, weakened and repealed. It's what happened to the New Deal in the US, it's what happens with the most fundamental gains of our liberation as women. How else can things like bodily autonomy and reproductive rights still be up for debate and get challenged over and over? I don't know about you but when you get old you get tired of having to push a rock up a hill just so that it rolls down again. That's why I support permanent change.

What does that bolded part even mean? What kind of "permanent change" can ever happen short of shooting every one of your ideological opponents in the head?

What kind of social change is irreversible by changing social opinion? How is such a thing accomplished?

[–]Galentines_day 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 17時間前 (15子コメント)

[–]Delthyr 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 16時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Galentines_day -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 16時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 16時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]Galentines_day 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 14時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 14時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Galentines_day 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 14時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Delthyr 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 17時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Galentines_day 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 16時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]emptyghosts 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

You are willfully misunderstanding what is being said to you. Nobody is saying that incremental change is worse than no change, they are disagreeing with your vision of how change happens. Do you believe that trickle down economics benefits the working class? I think at this point we can all pretty much agree that trickle down economics are a joke and a failure and have only served to enrich the already rich and widen the income gap. The type of feminism you are talking about (the female CEO being more receptive to female friendly policies) is basically trickle down feminism. It expects that a few people with power at the top can make the world better for the people at the bottom, and in some rare cases this works but in most cases it does not. The argument being made by many people on this thread is that real reforms happen when many people ask and fight and push for them. Maybe it is easier to put pressure on a woman executive than a man, but no change would happen at all without organized pressure from people below. Socialists are more concerned with creating and mobilizing people pressure than creating powerful people to put pressure on.

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

Socialists of all stripes have historically supported improvements and protections absolutely and consistently.

It's why we initiated the fight for fifteen in the US, or why we were and are continuously against apartheid of all kind, whether in South Africa in the past or in Israel-Palestine today. It's why we fight for immigrants in the US, to abolish borders, to eliminate private property, to abolish wage labour. We fight for racial equality everywhere, not just in the West, but in Asia against Han-supremacy, where people like Bonojit Hussein or Soojin Goo are discriminated against the way Black people were at the height of Jim Crow. It's why we support the Anti-Imperialist struggles of progressive nationalist movements abroad, because liberation won't come at the point of an American, Russian or Saudi bomb.

As for what marginalized groups think, we help them a lot more than your lip service and money ever will. We actually bother to get our hands dirty, whereas all you do is call people who even bother to look at class at all, privileged for not upholding your Capitalist oppression.

[–]GodelivaMarxist-Feminist 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 17時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Galentines_day -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 16時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]GodelivaMarxist-Feminist 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

So we're just to hope and pray that she be merciful and give us underlings a few choice privileges because she'll be "receptive" because she happens to be a woman?

You do know that Capitalist women don't have to work to survive right? So maternity leave isn't something they might worry about. There are no Capitalist women prostitutes who have to sell their bodies in order to make end's meet either. Also they have the money to hire nannies and enough money not to worry about the cost of health insurance so that day-care and child health care aren't issues too.

Also why would they support equal pay or equal promotional opportunities if they will first and foremost be all about profit as any good CEO is? That is their job you know, what is what board of directors pay them to do. If that means paying women less why wouldn't they? Please see if Meg Whitman, Marillyn A. Hewson or Mary T. Barra have made the improvements you're talking about.

But to hell with all that because you want a revolution and that's all that matters, right?

You're extremely irritating. We want that as our ultimate goal, and we also want the things you're discussing but you know how we get them? Not by hoping we get a good ruler who will be gentle and kind to us, but by fighting! That's how we got maternity leave in the first place in many countries, how we got the week-end, or minimum wage, or fair housing. By fighting, organizing and agitating, not sitting on our butt and calling leftists privileged because it messes with your love for exploiting other people.

[–]Caelrie -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 10時間前 (29子コメント)

[–]ascasco 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 10時間前 (28子コメント)

[–]Caelrie -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 9時間前 (27子コメント)

[–]ascasco 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 9時間前 (26子コメント)

Not to sound rude, but I mean what I said, that these things really help no one, except maybe the few individuals who benefit directly from them (ie, the individual women CEOs or trans soldiers).

Furthermore, they work to the detriment of lower class people, colonized people, and third world people. Well, it's not worse than the status quo, just not different. I personally draw the line at they're a waste of effort that could be poured into other avenues of activism. They aren't even going to contribute to the end of sexism or transphobia. So I do not see them as worth fighting for. On the flip side, however, they aren't worth the effort to oppose, either.

Like if there were a vote on whether or not to let trans people join the military, I just wouldn't cast a vote. I'd also not tell people to vote against it because that's nonesense.

[–]Caelrie -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 9時間前 (25子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 8時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]7775257 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 7時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Caelrie -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 7時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 4時間前 (5子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Caelrie -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 7時間前 (1子コメント)

Where did they say they were okay with discrimination?

When they said they didn't think such discrimination should have any effort spent opposing it.

If a Fascist party discriminates against women are you going to advocate for it to be inclusive?

Both? I can advocate for the opportunity of women to join it AND work to change it, too. A perfect example is the Catholic Church. I wish it would go away, but in the meantime, women should be allowed to join the priesthood.

Why exactly do you support oppression? Why are you for the systematic murder of people abroad and the exploitation of workers?

Because I don't have my head up some unicorn's butt in fantasyland. This is real life. Nations require militaries. That's just how things are. And since that's how things are, women and trans people ought to have the same opportunities inside them as everyone else.

[–]Adahn5⦕FT's Malleus⦖ 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ascasco 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]dratthecookies 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 3時間前 (12子コメント)

I think this is an interesting argument, and I see both sides. I'm actually sorry you're being downvoted, because I understand where you're coming from.

For the record, I am not a socialist. My politics are poorly defined, but that's neither here nor there.

From a socialist point of view, capitalism is inherently exploitative. Having minorities in positions of power in an exploitative system doesn't do much to end the exploitation. If you're a prisoner, for instance, it doesn't make much difference if the prison guard is the same race as you. Think of celebrities who get rich and/or famous and suddenly think racism isn't real.

I see this a lot recently in regards to the new US president. His supporters say he can't be racist or sexist because he's chosen women and/or racial minorities for high level cabinet positions. But I know that that's just not how racism/sexism work.

Likewise with his campaign manager. The right was crowing about her being the first woman to run a successful presidential campaign, and complaining that the left wasn't celebrating her for that. I can't really view this as a success for women when the person she helped to get elected is abhorrent to me and could result in a loss of civil rights and protections for minorities of all stripes.

I hope these examples give some perspective. I understand the value of having minorities in high profile positions, or positions of authority, but I seriously question if the system that propagates inequality will be toppled through inclusivity alone.

[–]Caelrie 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 2時間前* (11子コメント)

I hope these examples give some perspective. I understand the value of having minorities in high profile positions, or positions of authority, but I seriously question if the system that propagates inequality will be toppled through inclusivity alone.

The thing is, these people don't have any kind of plan whatsoever. All you ever get out of them is "we have to topple the system!". Well... how? What's the plan for that, exactly?

And while they're dreaming of that pie-in-the-sky nonsense, they're rejecting plans that make things better for real people right now. It's the ultimate in privilege. The vast majority of them are white, male, straight and in college on their parents' dime. They can afford to wait for the perfect outcome because they don't have any real problems right now. Meanwhile, millions of Americans can't, because they have real problems that need real, workable solutions.

[–]dratthecookies 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1時間前 (10子コメント)

And that pie-in-the-sky outlook is where you and I agree. I don't know what the plan is to dismantle the system. Maybe it's out there and I haven't educated myself enough to know it, but I don't see any real world progress - or meaningful attempts at progress - occurring right now.

So yes, I do see the value of minorities as CEOs or just the normalization of their (our) existence. After all, I can't wait for a revolution for me to be treated like a human being.

But I do think it's important that we have in mind the fact that gaining those positions of power is a salve, and maybe an incremental improvement, but true justice is unlikely without a major structural change. AND as a result of accepting that we know that the whole "how can I be racist, I just hired a black person!" argument won't hold water, because that's really just a cosmetic change that gives the appearance of equality.

So my question for you is, does this explanation hold water for you personally? Do you think there's a way to parse these two viewpoints? I feel like we're all on the same page, but just not the same paragraph.

[–]Caelrie 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1時間前 (9子コメント)

So my question for you is, does this explanation hold water for you personally? Do you think there's a way to parse these two viewpoints? I feel like we're all on the same page, but just not the same paragraph.

I disagree that we're on the same page, because the type of person we're talking about has planted himself firmly as an obstacle to the type of incremental change that makes things better.

A perfect example is Obamacare. They hate it because it's not single-payer, and most of them want to burn it to the ground because it's imperfect.

It IS imperfect, but it also gave first-time access to real healthcare for over 20 MILLION Americans. The solution is to improve it, to slowly work towards a public option and then start thinking about single-payer. The solution is NOT to burn Obamacare to the ground in a temper tantrum because you will only accept single-payer and nothing else.

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]lovelybone93Feminist communist (Filthy Tankie) 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 15時間前 (1子コメント)

IdPol is only useful to women, people of color and trans people as long as it continues to be a subversive force. The moment it stops being subversive, it stops being useful. This is due to most if not all, liberal uses of IdPol not having a class analysis included in its usage.

It makes no difference to me or any of my women co-workers if we have a black lesbian transgender woman exploiting our labor vs a white man, our labor is still exploited.

It makes no difference to the Yemenis and oppressed peoples around the world if we had a Hispanic cis woman as president ordering those drone strikes with women of color operating the drones vs white men doing so, they're still being killed and their resources plundered by imperialism.

In other words, I identify with the working-class, black, white, Asian, indigenous, cis or trans here over my own people in Puerto Rico that happen to be capitalists because the capitalist class are my oppressors. As a communist, I understand that class and identity are intertwined, with women, GSM people and people of color being oppressed based on their class primarily as part of the mode of production, and based on their identity via the superstructure the mode of production creates which casts them as subalterns to divide the working-class at large. I also understand that there can be no human liberation without class liberation of the proletariat, but there also cannot be human liberation without struggles for women's liberation, for black and brown liberation, for GSM liberation.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 1日前 (0子コメント)

[–]ConcernedMermaidred gyarados 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 15時間前 (12子コメント)

Jeez oh man, if I could go one day without having to read the phrase "identity politics" I'd be so so grateful.

Anywho I guess as a Marxist I could really care less about identity politics since they've morphed into some weird liberal accessory that people can pull out whenever they feel like playing revolutionary for a day. Modern identity politics has done a lot to empower and embolden the rise of white nationalist and fascist movements, which is a lot less surprising than it sounds.

Identity politics points fingers, it creates rifts. In place of unification it makes cliques, where everyone is too busy pointing out each others' flaws to collaborate and work towards common goals. This isn't to say that members of marginalized groups should be ignored; rather, it suggests that we can't rid ourselves of any one axis of oppression without simultaneously addressing and disposing of all others.

Mainstream left-liberal parties are where social movements go to die. Political establishments, intelligence agencies, and homegrown fascists beat them to death, and then groups like the US Democratic party play dress-up with their corpses. One of these corpses is identity politics, which has been co-opted insidiously to convince well-meaning people that they're making a difference when the institutions that perpetuate these oppressions stay just as stable as they've always been.

And just so we're clear: any of these "successes" of modern identity politics happens because, behind the wall of smiling liberal progressives, the angry and much less willing to compromise group of revolutionaries is waiting to push forward. Revolutions aren't apples and they don't drop when they're ripe. You have to shake the tree. You have to make it fall. And we can't do that unless we start acting collectively.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 14時間前 (11子コメント)

[–]ConcernedMermaidred gyarados 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 14時間前* (10子コメント)

EDIT: here's a great example of some very real and very recent collective action that positively impacted a number of people in Minnesota, check it out! It's very inspiring.

First of all none of this is easy. Making the world a better place isn't easy. So if you're after something easy maybe activism isn't for you and there's nothing wrong with that.

Talk to people. Form unions and groups locally, look for problems that can be solved in your area. Find similar groups in wider areas. Connect with them. Tackle bigger problems together with them.

If any of us had a 12-step plan to follow by-the-book that would end the institution of racism or anything like that we would have done it by now. But there are things we can build together, once people stop lamenting the impossibilities of it all. It takes time and work and energy, and people aren't always willing or able to invest that kind of energy. But that doesn't mean our goals are too lofty. It just means we need enough people to believe in our causes and devote themselves to it.

Sharing some posts on FB, wearing snazzy t-shirts, retweeting some stuff on twitter, that feels good and all, but we can't let that be the whole of our actions.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 13時間前* (9子コメント)

It just means we need enough people to believe in our causes and devote themselves to it.

This is what I'm getting at, actually. How have you been able to get people to believe in the cause who aren't there already? How do you gain support instead of vitriol? How do you change the perceptions so you aren't being fight every step of the way by people whom you'd actually be helping?

I'm not saying I want you to answer this, just that this is what my struggle is. It's the struggle I have with many non-socialist feminist issues, too. It's very well to argue that it isn't our job to explain because our job is to take action (AND I DO NOT DISAGREE), but I think having eloquent and persuasive spokespeople goes a long way to cementing a movement.

P.S. I'm a city planner and a lot of my interest/work/research is in collective action and environmental justice. I need to know I can work with socialism while I'm trying to help a community get clean water within the system that exists.

[–]Cyclone_1Anarcho-Communist / Sociologist / Feminist 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 10時間前* (8子コメント)

How do you gain support instead of vitriol? How do you change the perceptions so you aren't being fight every step of the way by people whom you'd actually be helping?

That's the work, though. You have to keep at it. You have to find new ways to get your message across. And you have to understand that not everyone is reachable. But you don't need everyone. You just need enough people. The rest either will come later or they won't.

a lot of my interest/work/research is in collective action

That's fascinating to me for lots of reasons but chief among them is that it fascinates me given your comment about how Anarchists and Communists haven't done anything significant and how you ~~are proudly~~ would just go ahead and be liberal.

The radicals can really drive collective action. They don't always have to but often times they really do. I think that gets devalued or discounted which is a real shame.

Although I would still say, as I am thinking of this now some more, that I think the cornerstone of many of the successful social justice movements in the last 50-60 years have been poor, black, women who were at the very least incredibly progressive all the way to very radical. But I am kind of off-topic here so shutting up now.

Cheers.

EDIT: Corrected as I remembered incorrectly and was too lazy to go back to get the accurate quote at the time I originally crafted this post. Thanks /u/FixinThePlanet for pointing that one out!

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 10時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Cyclone_1Anarcho-Communist / Sociologist / Feminist 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 10時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 10時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]Cyclone_1Anarcho-Communist / Sociologist / Feminist 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 10時間前 (4子コメント)

I think "working within the system to get change" is inherently very, very misguided. Most of the substantive social change that has come in the past 60-100 years has been through activism/direct action and I don't think that's just a fluke. Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights Movement, Labor Movement, Occupy to a smaller degree (of which people like Elizabeth Warren should thank for her initial popularity and Senate seat), etc.

Small victories within these movements that are still much more substantial than just voting, for example, are what really give me hope - for lack of a better word.

Those social movements have been incredible in terms of threatening systems of power to drastically change. Much more so than just voting. Plus, there's a tremendous amount of privilege, I believe, in being content in "working within the system". Some people can't even do that and it's not for a lack of voting.

Also, if the 2016 election and primary alone has taught us all only one thing, it is that there is a profound absence or lack of democracy in this country. We participate in the charade of it, really, so to assume the system is even for "us" to change "from within" is myth.

Just my two pennies at least.

[–]FixinThePlanetone boob at a time[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 10時間前* (3子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

π Rendered by PID 15024 on app-770 at 2017-01-07 10:02:34.095710+00:00 running 95f0e88 country code: JP.

FemmeThoughts

/r/FemmeThoughts supports /r/blackladies

New to /r/FemmeThoughts? Please read our subreddit rules and our FAQ before posting!

How do you get an instant ban from /r/FemmeThoughts?

調停者