You must log in or # to comment.
I’m dumb, is the point the guy is wrong or that the white woman is wrong?
I understand the comic is pointing out hypocrisy. But I also see it as illustrating how perspective can shift depending on where one stands, especially if one does not already have a clear understanding of what intersectionality is and can intellectualize it. Both the guy and the woman do not seem to be portrayed as evil people, just misguided.
The black woman still sees the same underlying point, and the white woman now feels “left out”. And perhaps she is next. In pops the Muslim woman.
Though this is clearly not the intended result, one must recognize that this is an underlying point of attack, an exploitable weakness. Bitterness can be created to break groups that otherwise have common interests apart, and without the overall coalition there is no power to enact change.
Ultimately, Black feminism is part of a broader feminist goal that is part of a broader humanist goal. We are together, we are aligned.
What matters is consistency.
“Why do you have a label that excludes me?” scales up and to a virtually universal group and down to a specialized category with only three members.
It doesn’t really matter if you say that men are right to critique the label “feminism” or if you allow specialization all the way down to “Midwestern small city non-theater trans-male part-African part-Irish demisexual furry feminism”. Just so long as you’re fighting bigotry and applying your principles consistently.
(I much rather spend effort arguing that a man arguing against anti-masculine sexism is a cause worth supporting than bickering over whether or not his cause counts as “feminism”, even though I would casually include him in the label.)
The white woman is being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
And the guy is wrong.
being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
I’m still stupid, can you fix the multiple negatives so I can understand
And the guy is wrong.
ok. thank you.
The man is trying to paper over the issues that divide men and women, the same way the white woman is papering over the issues that divide white and black women.
The white woman is being hypocritical. She expects the guy to understand her particular case. She cannot use the same logic to understand the black women’s case.
I believe it’s essentially the “Black Lives Matter” /“All Lives Matter” situation. Yes, we are striving for equality, but the movements are worded to highlight those who are most affected/disenfranchised by the status quo.
Woman gets it when she’s talking about the movement that applies specifically to her disenfranchisement, but not when she’s in the “out” group of a rights movement
I believe that is the point of the comic But I disagree that these are comparable.
The all lives matter reaction was created by the far right and is coded in direct opposition of Black lives matter as a movement which they want to destroy.
Feminism, masculism and equalism are each not good or bad but require balance.
The goal of Feminism is to advocate for women rights, freedom, respect and understanding. We need focused feminism because our world is unbalancedly scaled towards men.
The (intended?) goal of Masculism is the same goal as feminism but for men, we need much less of this because the world is unbalanced in male favor but we still need some people focused on it to combat against male sexism and abuse, which is more rare but equally not ok.
The goal of equalism is to support the above to try and bring balance, to be a voice of non traditional gender groups that do not fit the traditional focus, and to opposite radical versions, comon toxic masculinity or J K Rowling style Feminism.
“Why is it called feminism, everyone should be treated equally,” is exactly the same as saying, “why is it black lives matter, all lives matter?”
It’s misrepresenting their goals by saying that people who fight for one aspect of an issue are saying that no other aspect of the issue matters.
Most people who support feminism believe that everyone should be treated equally, but one gender needs a lot more lifting up to get equality.
It’s the same for BLM.
To add to my other comment, the
realideology where people literally believe the words “all lives matter” is actually antifascism. And as an antifascist I support BLM just as i would support a person of any other color that is the victim of racism of any kind of other human.Right, but the phrase “all lives matter” is a racist response to the BLM movement. The simple fact that you have to explain that you’re not being racist when saying it shows this.
It’s just the nature of things. I can’t have a mustache because it only grows beneath my nose. Some asshole went and ruined that style for everyone.
ALL lives matter has never been anything but racist whites not wanting to lose thier power.
Yes but I don’t think a proper equalist should make such a dumb statement, those are usually misogynists maskerading as equalist.
I consider myself an equalist and i have stated above exactly why i think feminism is important. To be an equalist in this time o history means to support feminism.
Feminists continue to lobby for priviledges in the west in aspects where they are already clearly ahead. They’ve stepped firmly into the side exceptionalism and supremacy.
Feminism is a very important tool in the fight for men’s liberation. We men have to realize that we have been manipulated into fighting against our own interests.
We have been told it is masculine to act individualistically, but it is in our best interests to act collectively.
We have been taught that it is masculine to hide our feelings, but it is in our interests to show them, so that others can understand our struggles.
We are taught as men it is weak to ask for help. But helping others makes all of us stronger.
Feminism is for men’s rights too.
not even true one bit.
The one colonists hate the most:
indigenous lives matter.Tell them to give the land back and they lose their shit.
I don’t understand what “give the land back” means. Would you mind explaining it?
There are a lot of poor, oppressed people who live on land their ancestors didn’t own. In the US, all Black people and most native Americans don’t live within 1000 km of where their ancestors lived 600 years ago. So when land is given back, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do natives become landlords? Is there ethnic cleansing? Or is it only land where people don’t reside? Also, many native cultures didn’t even have land ownership, so how do you give land back without forcing them into a western mould?
It means that it’s up to the natives. It sucks for the descendants of settlers, but the alternative, that the descendants of the people it was stolen from keep being oppressed is worse. The natives get to say what happens on their land, and withholding stewardship until there is an alternative that the settlers agree to is perpetuating oppression. Land back means land back.
I know it’s up to the natives, that’s why I’m asking. Because if they choose to build an oppressive system then those with power within the new system are the new oppressors to fight, and it would be nice to avoid that.
Oppressors can only exist if there are oppressed. It’s a dialectical relationship. And if you give the land back and the stewardship of the land into the hand of the oppressed, there won’t be an oppressive system by the definition of what oppression is. Could a new oppressive system (lets just say capitalism from now on) arise from that? Sure, even the USSR wasn’t immune to liberalism festering in it’s vanguard party leading to a complete collapse.
In fact, the soviet system and the october revolution with its subsequent wars give a good idea what giving the land to the people that work on it looks like.
