265
Intersectionality is the only rule
(media.kbin.social)
cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/my_mouldy_memes/t/310874
THE FUTURE OF FEMINISM
IS ONLY AS POWERFUL
AS THE FUTURE OF ANTI-RACISM
CLEO WADE
Lmfao, I'm just waiting for you (E: them) to explain to me how either feminism or anti-racism can succeed without the other.
I don't feel like I need to; the burden of proof is on you to explain why both must simultaneously succeed or fail
Lmfao, of course *you * think you shouldn't have to. But you do! You asked why, to explain it to you, I need to understand what you're struggling with.
You refusing to say the quiet part out loud just confirms to me what I knew from that first comment - that you're not genuinely interested, and that I have better things to waste my time on than on providing an education to someone who clearly doesn't want it.
If I make a meme which asserts that a giant Blahaj in the sky controls the American government, and you call it into question, is the burden of proof on you to explain what it is about the meme you don't understand, or on me to show you why I believe it's true?
To put it in less sarcastic terms, the answer is that what I'm struggling with is the whole thing.
You have put very little to no effort into your why question, and it was very effective at making the op mad, so if your goal was trolling I suppose it was effective.
If you are serious, then you don't have a good grasp of intersectionality and it isn't ops responsibility to teach you... Particularly when you are aggressive about your lack of knowledge being a good place to argue from.
I am not trolling, but was hoping for somebody, OP or otherwise, to explain why they believe the message of the meme to be true, so that I or other lemmings could learn a bit more about the subject. I'm glad that the community has stepped in to share their knowledge. My intent was not to be aggressive with my comparison to Russell's ~~teapot~~ Blahaj, if that's what led you to your judgement of my attitude, but to show OP that the burden of proof was on them to show why the two movements are as interdependent as they claim.
I would recommend you go figure out what sea lions are in this context. Hopefully it will help you understand why the attitude you brought is aggressive. If not I can answer that for you.
But they didn't post it. What came to mind, for you, when you posted it?
Oh, you're not even the same person lol
If you want to know my feelings feel free to scroll through my magazine.
Until then, get out of the way and let the person I was replying to explain to me why they see an issue with this post.
I think we first need to define “failed….” The cat’s been out of the bag on both of these issues for a while now. Racism and misogyny will still be around, but the pushback from the past makes it kind of hard to believe that we’ll all just go back to the standards of the 1800’s or something…
So you're claiming racism and sexism are what, an inevitable part of (white male) human nature we just have to put up with, while you get on with your oppressing? Yet if I said men are shit I guarantee you'd reply with "not all men".. Gtfoh you racist sexist ass.
…what? That’s not at all the point I was trying to make
I meant that ever since humanity started to grow more aware of the fact that racism and sexism can be so damaging, that that knowledge is kind of hard to forget or bury, and I don’t believe that either one of them will go back to the “dark ages” of the 1800’s. So with that in mind, especially with the internet available, what constitutes as racism or sexism reforms “failing?” Is it failure to achieve perfect extermination of these outdated ideals? Or is it something more extreme, like society undoing changes that have already been made towards rights and awareness?
Full disclosure: I am a US citizen, so much of my knowledge on racist and sexist societal reforms are framed with this in mind, I can’t speak to other countries
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/
The tl;dr is that independent movements leave or create additional issues. The example I have used elsewhere in my replies on this post is jk Rowling. She is a feminist. She is also a terf. Feminism, by itself, doesn't solve the problems of other excluded minority groups. If feminism was the only movement we considered, Rowlings position might not have ever been exposed and the bigotry that trans women face wouldn't be addressed by the feminist movement because terfs would silently exclude them.
In the 30s and 40s a major problem with feminism was the racism that infected it. It was for women's rights, as long as it was white women. This problem still exists today. Is feminism, feminism if black women are left behind? Are black women not women? Are trans women not women?
With the context of the other comments on this post, I have a much better understanding of what I think you’re trying to say, which is that (and correct me if I’m wrong) in order for these movements to succeed completely, they must work congruently with each other. Rather, it’s not about a movement “failing,” but about individual movements not maximizing potential for benefit without adjacent ideals. Does that sound about right?
In other words, feminism hasn’t “failed,” but it won’t “succeed” if TERFs are the primary figures, for example
Correct, which from the point if view from a trans woman may be failure.