daniphantomgone:

lucidstrike:

daniphantomgone:

america-wakiewakie:

“[M]en aren’t oppressed AS ‘men’. At worst, we are ‘repressed’ by the very same structures that privilege us and oppressed others, like bruising from firing a high-powered rifle”

Lucid Strike

What’s wrong with this is that it characterizes everything that happens to men as merely a side-effect of whatever they’re doing to women or whatever is happening to women. Framing all of men’s issues as something that would go away only when more women are CEOs/politicians, which only directly helps certain women.

That’d be more accurate for just about any other kind of oppression/marginalization, because for white and black people, there’s one group that’s unilaterally advantaged and one that’s unilaterally disandavtaged.

There’s  almost no sense in which it could EVER be advantageous to be black/disadvantageous to be white, where the same is not true for being a woman or man, despite the disadvantages.

"Framing all of men’s issues as something that would go away only when more women are CEOs/politicians, which only directly helps certain women."

That’s a liberal, reformist framework. I don’t just mean the concept that anti-patriarchy praxis is a simple matter of ‘representation’, of particular women getting particular positions of power. I mean also the framework with which you analyzed what I said.

I’m a materialist, and I understand full well that ending patriarchy is not a matter of promotions and electoral victories but rather of forcing a fundamental structural shift such that ‘class’ relations, such as those between men and women, are subverted completely.

I don’t disagree. But the question is HOW to do that. How to go about that. And on what basis.

That’s a whole superset of questions to answer. Long road ahead and lots of detours to be made and discussions to be had along the way. :T

daniphantomgone:

america-wakiewakie:

“[M]en aren’t oppressed AS ‘men’. At worst, we are ‘repressed’ by the very same structures that privilege us and oppressed others, like bruising from firing a high-powered rifle”

Lucid Strike

What’s wrong with this is that it characterizes everything that happens to men as merely a side-effect of whatever they’re doing to women or whatever is happening to women. Framing all of men’s issues as something that would go away only when more women are CEOs/politicians, which only directly helps certain women.

That’d be more accurate for just about any other kind of oppression/marginalization, because for white and black people, there’s one group that’s unilaterally advantaged and one that’s unilaterally disandavtaged.

There’s  almost no sense in which it could EVER be advantageous to be black/disadvantageous to be white, where the same is not true for being a woman or man, despite the disadvantages.

"Framing all of men’s issues as something that would go away only when more women are CEOs/politicians, which only directly helps certain women."

That’s a liberal, reformist framework. I don’t just mean the concept that anti-patriarchy praxis is a simple matter of ‘representation’, of particular women getting particular positions of power. I mean also the framework with which you analyzed what I said.

I’m a materialist, and I understand full well that ending patriarchy is not a matter of promotions and electoral victories but rather of forcing a fundamental structural shift such that ‘class’ relations, such as those between men and women, are subverted completely.

wretchedoftheearth:

like honestly, I see no benefits in liberal feminism other than it being easier

slutwalks are not empowering to me, my body is inherently considered hypersexual

I don’t even think they help white cis women. If you read comments and groups, you’ll see that a lot of men take them literally and think of them as women on parade for them

And like, to what extent is living outside of the male gaze helpful? The male gaze is impactful because men tend to be more powerful within institutions. I don’t even think that slut walks are outside of the male gaze to be honest

the liberal narrative of “choice” is useless. not all women have access to choices. and even the choices I have access to do not help alleviate my oppression.

I don’t think that any choice I make is meaningful or impactful in ~liberating~ me when men - particularly white cis men - are still largely in control of my access to institutions and the likelihood that I will be subject to violence

bonebleach:

if you seriously cannot tell the different between “i hate the group that i am oppressing” and “i hate the group that is oppressing me” you need to sit down and shut up

"i hate trans people" is not the same as "i hate cis people"

"i hate a group of people so i’m going to kill, rape, judge, and oppress them" is not the same as "wow, i hate the group that continues to kill, rape, judge, and oppress me and people like me" 

For women, the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered. It is this real connection which is so feared by a patriarchal world…Interdependency between women is the way to a freedom which allows the I to be, not in order to be used, but in order to be creative. This is a difference between the passive be and the active being.

Audre Lorde

“The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House”

(via para-todxs-todo)

angryseawitch:

liberal feminists: “no no feminists aren’t fat hairy and ugly! don’t worry… we totally marginalize and silence the ones that are.”

(Source: stayuglystayangry)


thepeoplesrecord:

Imperialist Feminism: A Historic Review with Deepa Kumar
August 2, 2013

The West has often used the liberation of brown women as an excuse for empire. This talk reviews a few examples and offers some analysis. It begins with the Afghan war but goes back to 19th century colonial narratives in regard to Muslim women.

Source

(Source: thepeoplesrecord)