Christianity is kind of odd in that the central figure doesn't really demonstrate characteristics we'd think of a masculine. Jesus is a pacifist. He's compassionate. He's a son, not a father. Maybe he represented some kind of shift? Not sure — frank

Don't we worry, we fixed that.

He's an interesting man and significant figure in U.S. History (he brought the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius along with him on his trip along the Amazon, by the way, which I think impressive). But I find his daughter Alice even more interesting.

Once upon a time, sexism was an explicit view of the superiority of men over women, and discrimination against women on this basis. Particularly within the industrialised era, such views don't just manifest themselves in personal interactions, but become systemic and these systemic factors create wide-scale disparities between genders. It doesn't do justice in describing the disadvantages that a woman faces due to sexism and therefore, it's insufficient to talk about the interpersonal in relation to sexism.

We need to analyse the disparities in political representation, media representation, wealth equality, representation in the workplace, disparities in legal outcomes and so on. Our cultures themselves have naturally been impacted by these systems and their disparities, so we need to look at concepts of masculinity/feminity, and the influence could have spread anywhere.

The trickle-down effect and the sexist nature of our systems and culture mean, along with things such as unconscious biases, that it's no longer required to explain disparities with explanations of discrimination against women, or the relatively defunct explicit view of male superiority of men over women.

Today, what does "sexist" mean? What is a "sexist" culture? What is being referred to? What is the logic that ties it together? There isn't any.

Just a list of disparities, whoever has the will is free to interpret them as they wish. "Oppression"... what's that? A list of disparities, cause irrelevant, speculation optional. What is "patriarchy"? Ah, right, another list of disparities.

How asinine one would be, to treat with seriousness the terms of sexism, oppression or patriarchy as described by feminists. The terms are used to, without qualification, list disparities and make attempts at explanations for their existence. Use reductionist narratives or legitimate arguments, anything goes.

Who could ever support "oppression"? Who would ever support sexism? Nobody can. Therefore, these terms, are literal condemnations, with little to no indication given as to why or what is being condemned. Many of the explanations are so insipid, it's hard to believe. Suppose that's what happens when terms refer to little more than something being undesirable.

How funny it is to watch a culture condemn sexism, while also defining sexism by what they condemn, it's such a farce. Why condemn disparities? What's the philosophy for why they shouldn't exist? The goal is so unbelievably obscured, but nobody cares, it's amazing, everyone's just "Down with the patriarchy!!".

There's a female pediatric intensivist I know of. Word is that when she has a proposal to make, she hands it to a particular male surgeon and asks him to make it. She's learned that the hospital establishment will listen to him. They won't listen to her. It's sexism. I don't know if her pay is any less than a male doing the same thing. I kind of doubt she's hurting for money, though. Point is, there's more to it than income disparity.

Why do you think we particularly focus on income disparity?

:grin:


:up:

Looking at, sure. I'm trying (but clearly not doing a good job) to draw distinctions between the data which informs a strategy, and the strategy itself. The risk factors for oppression, and the actual groups oppressed. — Isaac

Good reflections and arguments, Isaac. At least from my vantage. I'm glad to have something meatier to think through.

A measurement isn't always a good measurement, and it's particularly difficult to tease out what a good measurement is with respect to oppression because history is not repeatable in the same way that other experiments are. "Oppression" has no units, after all. It's a story. Further I'd say your measurements are good at assessing an individual's circumstances, but that the individual isn't always an appropriate place for understanding group dynamics -- so the metrics of oppression you list won't capture all of what a group faces. It's a part of the story, and important to check up on because hey maybe one day the world really will be different and our metrics will display that, but not the whole. Politics isn't done with stats as much as it's done with relationships and stories.

I think that's a pretty common point of disagreement that's missed. What these political philosophies are doing are not enforcements of a law or a principle for individuals, nor laying out some universal truth, but rather binding people together in spite of differences that seem important. Intersectionality isn't a scientific law as much as it is an organizer's tool which has already been proven. Through the history of social movements the more successful ones are usually ones that can break through group barriers: this is as true in labor as other social movements. When sexism or race can be overcome in the workplace then people can find it in themselves to bind together -- or, on the flip side, if sexism or race are not overcome then it's pretty easy to divide and conquer. And these social phenomena are so common that anyone actually organizing had better be aware of their patterns or they'll fail -- these structures are so common that even going into organizing with an open mind towards nominalism you'll wonder just why you're seeing the same patterns so often. They aren't group-wide, mind. But noticeable, and effective at disrupting anyone trying to pull a group together.

If governments acted in accord with ethical principle then it would make much more sense to look at international disparity. But governments, like people, don't have that perspective really. We are generally much more short-sighted than that. What people do care about are usually a little more homely -- stability for self and children, access to material goods, community respect and a place in the world. And that changes with our social systems such that a USian will be attached to much more material wealth as a "base line" than the poorest of the earth.

Which isn't an excuse on the ethical front -- but this is politics, and to be effective you have to understand what people really care about. The international poor just isn't that big of a rallying cry, I'd hazard that's because in our particular social system we've erected a public/private property distinction. While it's certainly true that if Helen Mirren cared about the plight of the poor she'd act differently, the fact is that not only does she not care -- most human beings don't either, but not because we're callous, but because this is how we're trained to be with our private money, and people really believe they "earned" it. (EDIT: Or, perhaps it'd be better to call it a learned callousness -- we don't perceive ourselves as callous, though I think what I've said describes a callous attitude towards others in an "objective" sense)

Now I don't think I'll ever see the likes of the wealthy and published get down into the political truth of things. But I know that there's others who see that story and like it, and it's not because there aren't people worse off -- most people, if pressed, will fess up to that.

But what people care about is themselves and theirs, and not some kind of universal ethic or geopolitics, for the most part. At least insofar that they have yet to realize that, indeed, we're all interdependent upon one another and what nations do effects what our families do.

In a big sense people will care about others they don't know, but if we're talking about what we do -- it's just a bit too far out there for most of us to reach for.

And on the international stage I'd say that's too far out of grasp for anyone to reach for. We're still basically tribal at this point, but with bigger weapons and better information technology. The only way to even have a hope of being able to control something as large as the world economy such that global disparity could be addressed is going to take something huge -- because no one really knows how to do it. No one is in charge at all, at this point, though NATO and the CIS and China are all vying for that position.

Those organizations are primarily run by men.

So on the other hand I'd say that a discussion of gender isn't sideways to the issues, but is digging at one of the many causal reasons the world is as it is now. Patriarchy -- the rule of men -- is still quite common. And healthier gender identities -- ones not obsessed with maintaining power at home or at work -- will undermine that.

The part where I'll come closer to what you say is that I agree replacing the face with a woman doing the same thing is basically a non-starter. That's patriarchy, but now a woman is doing it. It reminds me of the cartoon where the brown people celebrated a woman president because they were finally being drone-bombed in an equal world.

That's definitely a tactic of governments to appease intersectional approaches while maintaining control.

But the point of intersectionality is to build something together -- which in turn requires others to hear the grievances of others in the group.

Here, of course, we're doing philosophy and exploring ideas. So it's a bit difficult to get the notion across since it's not doing the rational thing of laying out evidence to support or deny a conclusion.

But that's politics. It's not science.

(EDIT: Or, at least, when I'm doing intersectional approaches I'm not doing science. I'm drawing on my organizer experience in addition to some philosophy -- others do it different, of course, but this is my approach)

Yeah, not sure why you interpreted "disparity" as "income disparity" but any disparity in outcomes would suffice, proven or perceived.

Also I should say that the above is merely with respect to intersectionality, since it's understandably been brought up.

I think that Feminism counts as a serious body of thought that's not just doing politics -- but it is doing philosophy, rather than science. I'm not sure what a feminist science would look like other than pushing out the patriarchal forms and reflections that still reside there (especially in the physical sciences)

Yeah, not sure why you interpreted "disparity" as "income disparity" but any disparity in outcomes would suffice, proven or perceived. — Judaka

So what's the problem?

A term describing disparities shouldn't have a moral stigma, disparities are only immoral if they're wrong or unfair. If sexism is just disparities, what does it mean to be sexist? And isn't it a problem to have a term that describes disparities, which in all the same contexts describes the reason for those disparities being due to a bias against the competence of women?

A term describing disparities shouldn't have a moral stigma, disparities are only immoral if they're wrong or unfair. If sexism is just disparities, what does it mean to be sexist? And isn't it a problem to have a term that describes disparities, which in all the same contexts describes the reason for those disparities being due to a bias against the competence of women? — Judaka

I don't think anyone defines sexism as a set of disparities, do they? Sexism is a kind of prejudice. Disparities are the concrete outworking of historic and present day sexism. We focus on disparity because it's something we can and do address through legislation. We can't legislate how people think and feel, and we don't need to.

I don't think anyone defines sexism as a set of disparities, do they? — frank

She's learned that the hospital establishment will listen to him. They won't listen to her. It's sexism. — frank

You took a disparity in outcomes and called it sexism. Which is pretty standard.

Disparities are not "concrete outworkings of historic and present-day sexism", there are a myriad of factors responsible for any outcome, and they do not belong to a single cause. You can't measure the effect of sexism, because you can't measure, for example, the effect of sexist portrayals of women in films. You could know that might've had an effect, but you can't measure that effect. It's the same for a lot of things.

You want to legislate to get rid of disparities without asking why they exist, that's hilarious. Feminism in 2023.

You took a disparity in outcomes and called it sexism — Judaka

No, I didn't. The disparity isn't the sexism. It's the result of sexism.

Anybody who defines sexism as a set of disparities is an idiot.

Legislate?

No.

I'm certainly nowhere near to making a proposition for laws, at least. Not at all.

Huh? How do you know it's the result of sexism? If there's no burden on you to prove any wrongdoing that creates the disparity in outcomes, then you're free to call any disparity the result of sexism. If you describe sexism as purely interpersonal then you can't describe sexism within a nation, you can only use disparities in outcomes for that. Go ahead, call sexism exclusively interpersonal prejudice, tell me outcomes aren't sexist, and I'll prove you wrong, or maybe one of the feminists could do it for me?


Thank goodness.

Thank goodness. — Judaka

Heh.

I wouldn't want to make anything I've said thus far a law.

I'm attracted to the political, but not in that way.

I'll ask again, though -- what is a real man? Or even simply a man? Or a masculine gender identity?

Those aren't laws. They're how we identify and feel.

.

One is that I think the lack of really caring about one's masculinity is itself a masculine trait. Who are you to tell me what kind of man I am? I can get by on my own without your approval -- like a man. — Moliere

I think this is basically correct. I'm biased and old blah blah blah but to be 'a fucking man' is to not be small and pushed around and defined by other motherfuckers who should be shoveling my snow.
More seriously, I'll shovel my own snow, because I don't need to bully folks to have a good time ( I know lots of servers, served tables myself once, and I've seen babyish games in adults.)

Anyway, a true boss can afford to be magnanimous, and prefers to be, because it feels good-- 'selfishly'. The idea of the gentleman seems to point at this. Poldy Bloom from Ulysses comes to mind. He's maybe too passive, but that artistic device is a foil against which his generous, confident, and selfsufficient soul shines.

:up:

I'll ask again, though -- what is a real man? Or even simply a man? Or a masculine gender identity?

Those aren't laws. They're how we identify and feel — Moliere

What these terms refer to changes based on context, and your attempt to analyse them without context is pointless. A "man" is just a word, you're dealing with words as though they're concepts, and as though the contexts are just situations where words are used.

From a biological perspective, a social perspective, a legal perspective, a cultural perspective, a person's particular interpretation, or whatever else, the answer is different, and should be different. In each case, the word refers to something different.

The entire reason why this is even a discussion is that the word "man" is written into laws, it's part of social codes, and who qualifies as a man within those contexts is relevant for transgender people.

Or will you pretend that you're unconcerned about the ramifications of the answers? Would you define masculinity in a way that promotes behaviours you don't want? Alienates people in ways you wouldn't want?

The entire reason why this is even a discussion is that the word "man" is written into laws, it's part of social codes, and who qualifies as a man within those contexts is relevant for transgender people.

Or will you pretend that you're unconcerned about the ramifications of the answers? Would you define masculinity in a way that promotes behaviours you don't want? — Judaka

No.

I think it obvious I'm concerned about ramifications.

But I also don't think I'm The One, or somehow have a special knowledge. I'm reflecting on what I've done thus far and on what I see in the world. It's philosophy, but it's perspectival.

I certainly would not define masculinity in a way that promotes bad behaviors. I think, with everything I've said thus far, that's also obvious.

I think men are good. I think masculinity is good.

I certainly don't want to define them in a way that's against what I see good in the identities.

So -- the entire reason may not matter.

That's a thought about me, and not masculinity.

What makes a real man?

If you defined masculinity and listed the merits in terms of ramifications, I'd at least find it interesting. It's farcical to talk about what a "real" man is, each designing and keenly anticipating certain real-world outcomes our answers would produce. The word must be allowed to mean different things in different contexts. I'd rather deal with the subtext of the question directly than pretend it doesn't exist. Your question permits no nuance, it has no context, it demands an absolute, and none of this is acceptable.

My question is open-ended. You're free to say what you like. This isn't a yes-and-no style of questioning.

You're allowed as much nuance and context as you wish -- that's philosophy. Redefine the question, or however you wish to express your position.

It's fair, I think, at this point to ask you to say something about what you want when it comes to masculinity. I have and others have.

I redirect you to the question because thus far you're only complaining about feminism.

But the topic is masculinity.

Sorry, didn't realise criticising the feminism in this thread was off-limits.

It seems like you're intending to ignore my criticism, so I'll stop expecting an answer to it.

To give a very generic answer to an incredibly broad question, to me, masculinity entails among other things a focus on competence, competition, independence, assertiveness, strength and status. Looking at emasculating terms, they often target a man's lack of these things.

Thank you for your response.

I read ( mostly scrolled) a few SEP and wiki articles on the subject and can't say I'm any the wiser.
Too many sub-theories, criticisms, objections, and responses. What's new!?
Perhaps if you ever decide to start a thread, I might learn how it can be used in a practical way.

As for the 'intuition' aspect and your story, there are so many variables to take into account as to what happened, why and how...depending on which one you plug in, it could all have turned out very different.
Even 'good luck' that the drunk was compliant.

However, I think my participation in this thread has come to a natural end. I've learned a lot more than I expected but after 16 pages...yeah, enough already. Time to rest up.

A measurement isn't always a good measurement, and it's particularly difficult to tease out what a good measurement is with respect to oppression because history is not repeatable in the same way that other experiments are. "Oppression" has no units, after all. It's a story. Further I'd say your measurements are good at assessing an individual's circumstances, but that the individual isn't always an appropriate place for understanding group dynamics -- so the metrics of oppression you list won't capture all of what a group faces. It's a part of the story, and important to check up on because hey maybe one day the world really will be different and our metrics will display that, but not the whole — Moliere

Then is any claim to oppression deniable? On any grounds?

What these political philosophies are doing are not enforcements of a law or a principle for individuals, nor laying out some universal truth, but rather binding people together in spite of differences that seem important. Intersectionality isn't a scientific law as much as it is an organizer's tool which has already been proven. — Moliere

I don't see any evidence of that. The working class seem more divided now than they've ever been, the left wing has been effectively neutered by it's own internal divisions. the rift in the American working class between the white working men and the 'identity politics' groups is basically responsible for the surge in populism (with the liberal response to covid and trans issues just deepening that divide). In my country the rift between anti-semitism and support for Palestine has effectively killed off left wing opposition with differences over trans issues between traditional feminists and modern views mopping up any remaining unity there might have been.

The world, particularly the left, is at each other's throats. Ukraine, covid, trans,... not a single big issue has been tackled recently without dividing into two warring camps with division enforced with an iron fist (or as 'iron' as lefty politics gets, anyway). I've been in left wing politics for three decades, fighting pernicious taxation, racism, environmental destruction, etc...the usual. I took a different position on covid - I was regularly called a 'murderer' (right here on this site, with absolutely no consequence). I took a different position on Ukraine - I've been listed as a war crimes collaborator, friends have had far worse. I took a different position on trans issues - I'm a bigot, again, others I know have had worse. This is all in the last three of four years, after over thirty previous years of left-wing activism with nothing of the sort happening (despite some absolutely tempestuous disagreements).

So unless you've got something to hold against that impression, I'm not buying this story that these new forms of identity politics unite. Not from where I'm standing. If they do, they unite by simply crushing dissent.

to be effective you have to understand what people really care about. The international poor just isn't that big of a rallying cry, I'd hazard that's because in our particular social system we've erected a public/private property distinction. While it's certainly true that if Helen Mirren cared about the plight of the poor she'd act differently, the fact is that not only does she not care -- most human beings don't either, but not because we're callous, but because this is how we're trained to be with our private money, and people really believe they "earned" it. — Moliere

This is neither inevitable, nor was it always the case. I agree that there's a barrier to cross here, but you're writing a thread a masculinity. Is that not also embedded? why not take the same "'twas ever thus" resigned attitude when it comes to feminism, or race, or homophobia? If we can fight against those entrenched cultural values, then why are you advocating we just accept this one?

Patriarchy -- the rule of men -- is still quite common. And healthier gender identities -- ones not obsessed with maintaining power at home or at work -- will undermine that. — Moliere

But not according to your principle above. You seem to see patriarchy as something entrenched but resolvable and private property sacredness as something entrenched but not resolvable. I'm not sure why.

Then is any claim to oppression deniable? On any grounds? — Isaac

Aren't they all deniable on any grounds?

"Oppression" is pretty abstract. And history can't be falsified. So, depending upon how we tell the story, the fact that child labor is being utilized is the fault of the employer and those individual companies which utilize that stream of value. Helen Mirren's private money is her's to keep and do with as she wills. For all her wealth she is only an individual, and even if she gave it all away the systemic problems would remain. The culpability is at the level of the company, and so our buying slave-labor goods is a private decision in a market whereas the companies decision is the one that makes that market in the first place.

That is, "responsibility" is an elastic concept that changes with the story-teller -- or historian.

In this age pictures of the suffering are utilized primarily to manipulate us. Someone is making a buck somewhere with the images of the suffering -- be it state departments, NGO's, or private charities.

This is neither inevitable, nor was it always the case. I agree that there's a barrier to cross here, but you're writing a thread a masculinity. Is that not also embedded? why not take the same "'twas ever thus" resigned attitude when it comes to feminism, or race, or homophobia? If we can fight against those entrenched cultural values, then why are you advocating we just accept this one? — Isaac

Hrmm... I don't believe I've said something to that effect. Though let me just be clearer then: I accept we can fight against entrenched values, including the entrenched values of capital.

In the above I'm telling the story from a particular viewpoint to demonstrate the elasticity of responsibility -- how "responsibility" is a view-point dependent concept. Or, relative to a point-of-view.

I'm certainly an anti-capitalist. Some of the value I see in intersectionality is there are some common resonances between the Big Structural Problems. But that's about as specific as I can think it right now on the conceptual level -- the proof of intersectionality, that capital and patriarchy interlink, is in the fights which won by overcoming barriers.

Now, in the true history of things that's a bit rosy. There are some fights that won because of that, and some which won because they were ruthlessly selfish and closed fort. The Fraternal Order of Police is a great example of the latter. The trades are barely more liberal than them, and the original AFL was formed around the notion of skilled labor being more valuable than unskilled labor.

But this is history again -- not conceptual. As clear as I can be about intersectionality is I perceive resonances between these social structures -- but there's a lot of intellectual work that I don't even know how to do to make that make sense. (hence, philosophy)

I don't see any evidence of that. The working class seem more divided now than they've ever been, the left wing has been effectively neutered by it's own internal divisions. the rift in the American working class between the white working men and the 'identity politics' groups is basically responsible for the surge in populism (with the liberal response to covid and trans issues just deepening that divide). In my country the rift between anti-semitism and support for Palestine has effectively killed off left wing opposition with differences over trans issues between traditional feminists and modern views mopping up any remaining unity there might have been.

The world, particularly the left, is at each other's throats. Ukraine, covid, trans,... not a single big issue has been tackled recently without dividing into two warring camps with division enforced with an iron fist (or as 'iron' as lefty politics gets, anyway). I've been in left wing politics for three decades, fighting pernicious taxation, racism, environmental destruction, etc...the usual. I took a different position on covid - I was regularly called a 'murderer' (right here on this site, with absolutely no consequence). I took a different position on Ukraine - I've been listed as a war crimes collaborator, friends have had far worse. I took a different position on trans issues - I'm a bigot, again, others I know have had worse. This is all in the last three of four years, after over thirty previous years of left-wing activism with nothing of the sort happening (despite some absolutely tempestuous disagreements).

So unless you've got something to hold against that impression, I'm not buying this story that these new forms of identity politics unite. Not from where I'm standing. If they do, they unite by simply crushing dissent. — Isaac

Identity politics goes further back than the last three or four years. Trans issues have become more prominent in that time, but the notion of particular groups facing different pressures that are simultaneously related goes back at least to Martin Luther King, Jr. in his address The Three Evils of Society. I'd also claim that the LGBT alliance is an example of functional intersectionality. Both go back to the era of Feminism I've been references, 2nd wave. That whole era had an outgrowth of minority positions advocating for themselves in the public which resulted in cultural change. And I'd say that gold old fashion working class union politics is an example of intersectionality-at-work.

So what's different?

Information technology has changed our social landscape to a point that we're unable to deal with the flow of information, and economic pressures of capital are driving people into their tribal identities because of a constant state of fear and anxiety due to swimming in propaganda 24/7 is my guess.

But it's just a guess. And all the old forms are still around, on top of this new, exciting, odd, and terrifying technology.

That is -- I'm still a good Marxist. It's the material conditions!

But the specifics can matter sometimes from the perspective of organizing people, at least.

And due to the elasticity of responsibility, depending on who you are talking to, they really are in a different world and probably have a learned callousness to some issue or another because care is abused by propaganda so we're all out of it.

It takes effort to care, and there are mouths to feed, hours to clock, bills to pay, or in a word -- the grind. They grind the care out of people to the point that they have to look at what's directly ahead of them. But if they hear a story that they can connect to -- such as a sense of solidarity with women who have to endure patriarchy -- you can lift people up out of that grind so they can dare to care about something more.

At least that's the idea.

But not according to your principle above. You seem to see patriarchy as something entrenched but resolvable and private property sacredness as something entrenched but not resolvable. I'm not sure why — Isaac

Hopefully this goes some way to erase that impression.


There's more I want to say -- but I can tell when I'm starting to cross over into "oh shite this is a real project" and I think that's where I'm almost at now. I'm really good at over-promising because I get caught up in the excitement of an idea so no promises -- but now I want to write an essay on Brandon Darby and Fight Club as a critique of the masculine identity in activist spaces. (It will be a best seller with that riveting title, surely)

Aren't they all deniable on any grounds? — Moliere

Possibly, but if so, then an argument about oppression isn't complete without an argument as to why this and not that form should be heard.

In this age pictures of the suffering are utilized primarily to manipulate us. Someone is making a buck somewhere with the images of the suffering -- be it state departments, NGO's, or private charities. — Moliere

Again, its odd that you can say this so blithely about children, but not see exactly the same with women (and trans, and people of colour, and the disabled, etc). If images of suffering can be abused to make a buck, then what does that tell us about the campaign for trans acceptance, for example (worth about a million dollars per unit to the pharmaceuticals for a lifetime of hormone therapy)? Are you equally prepared to water down their message with such words of caution?

the proof of intersectionality, that capital and patriarchy interlink, is in the fights which won by overcoming barriers. — Moliere

But they're absolutely self-evidently not. As I said to @fdrake earlier. Women's rights have leapt forward, trans rights even faster. Yet we've just had the largest single transfer of wealth ever, are living through the highest levels of wealth disparity there's ever been and 50 million children face starvation in a world of BigMacs and Sushi. It is abundantly clear that intersectionality has not linked with fights against poverty. It's done fuck all. The rights of those identities in the fight have generally been improved and the rights of the remaining poor have been ignored completely.

The recent campaigns for women's rights has benefited mostly middle class women (less sexual harassment at work, higher pay). Its done fuck all for Afghan women whose lives have deteriorated thanks to the fickle warmongering of the US.

The campaign for trans rights have benefited middle class Westerners, who now can express themselves with less fear of reprisal. Trans Yemeni's aren't any less hungry though.

The recent crap about white privilege has maybe improved job prospects and education opportunities for middle class people of colour. It's done fuck all for the massive 'people of colour' community in Sudan who still find themselves on the brink of starvation.

If you can point to a single example where any of these campaigns have helped the poor be less poor, I'm all ears, otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking at best, apologetics at worst.

Again, its odd that you can say this so blithely about children, but not see exactly the same with women (and trans, and people of colour, and the disabled, etc). If images of suffering can be abused to make a buck, then what does that tell us about the campaign for trans acceptance, for example (worth about a million dollars per unit to the pharmaceuticals for a lifetime of hormone therapy)? Are you equally prepared to water down their message with such words of caution? — Isaac

That's not my callousness -- I care about anti-capitalist politics. I care about the state of the world, and it bothers me that we are so callous towards the suffering of others in what we do. But I can lay out the viewpoints of others as they would. This is a common sentiment you had to have encountered when talking about private money and the plight of the poor across the world? (Have you read Peter Singer's essay The Solution to World Poverty?)

The point of my demonstration is to show how we all come from a different perspective. Surely you are acquainted with the attitude I've laid out from your time as an activist? Anti-capitalism is about as popular as feminism.

When talking organizing usually all this theory is put to the side and you talk bread-and-butter, which means connecting what your organization is doing to what is important to a person.

If you can point to a single example where any of these campaigns have helped the poor be less poor, I'm all ears, otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking at best, apologetics at worst. — Isaac

Women and trans people are included in the working class and proletariat.

The fight over birth control is a salient example that links class and patriarchy -- though I listed some other examples for the thesis that included other inter-linking systems.

And as long as people working at a call center that requires nothing more than a high school diploma counts, then I'd say I've worked with several trans working class people who have benefited from having their stories told.

Further, any workplace organizing I've done frequently runs into problems of both gender and race. So in practical terms it's required if one wants to do something about class, such as form a union or pull off a strike, because these identities will be utilized to divide your group otherwise.

The reason the left is weak isn't because we're different. It's because thems who own are good at divide-and-conquer.

But the way to overcome that isn't to say "You're issue doesn't matter, money is what matters!" -- it's to say "Your issue is connected to money in this way, and this is what we're doing about it"

The middle class don't need these protections as much as the working class -- they have the money to find private solutions to these problems. But working class people includes women, trans individuals, LGBT, and racial differences. With respect to patriarchy I think this is most prominent on the issue of abortion -- there was all of one abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas (the city I did most of my organizing in), and it helped working class women more than the middle class women who could afford a plane ticket get it taken care of. Keeping open that clinic was helping working class women deal with the facts of life in a practical way that's not Industrial Action -- but it's certainly a resource the poor need and use (and is being fought against by the patriarchs who want women to be baby factories).


As for why labor and the left are fractured -- I think it's giving up on class politics. I certainly think class politics are important. But for that I wouldn't blame the feminist organizations or trans groups or race-based organizing. I'd blame the unions and the labor leaders who are comfortable enough to be so callous. (Or, really, the whole thing. The big tamale. The international order of capital which is under no one's control -- how do you control something which no one controls?)

The recent campaigns for women's rights has benefited mostly middle class women (less sexual harassment at work, higher pay). Its done fuck all for Afghan women whose lives have deteriorated thanks to the fickle warmongering of the US.

The campaign for trans rights have benefited middle class Westerners, who now can express themselves with less fear of reprisal. Trans Yemeni's aren't any less hungry though.

The recent crap about white privilege has maybe improved job prospects and education opportunities for middle class people of colour. It's done fuck all for the massive 'people of colour' community in Sudan who still find themselves on the brink of starvation.

If you can point to a single example where any of these campaigns have helped the poor be less poor, I'm all ears, otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking at best, apologetics at worst. — Isaac

Addressing this more specifically -- I'm pointing to examples that I'm familiar with. In terms of the international order: they don't exist.

That's a problem of capitalism, or at least my thoughts go there.

But my final question was meant to point out how capital isn't controlled by anyone, and the various factions of the world are all wanting to be The One Who Controls. Currently the global south is the easiest to exploit by the powers that be, so we have fights over the middle-east and oil reserves to ensure trade lines for our various economic systems that are preferred -- NATO, CIS, or China. All over being able to exploit S. America and Africa.

Bringing it up is important.

What to do about it given the attitudes of most people, though?

I don't know. Feminism, as unpopular as it is, is still easier to explain to people than Marxism. Too many anti-bodies against Marxism still exist.

That's not my callousness
...
Surely you are acquainted with the attitude I've laid out from your time as an activist? — Moliere

I'm not suggesting you agree with dismissing images of suffering that way. I'm saying that the exact same arguments can be made against modern identity politics, yet aren't. That fact that they aren't (whereas this world-weary shoulder shrug at the mention of poverty is common), is a significant fact - a matter in need of explanation.

I gave the example of a trans person (very hot topic right now). They're worth about a million dollars to a pharmaceutical company transitioning. Not worth a penny just wearing a dress and make-up. You don't think that gives the pharmaceutical company a huge financial interest in promoting this aspect of trans rights? Of course it does. But even mentioning this is absolutely toxic. It would be sufficient to have your work removed from publication, if not you banned for transphobia. Yet here you are casually making exactly the same type of comment about the charitable sector making money from exploitation of suffering, to absolutely no rebuke. Why is that?

I think it's naive in the extreme to ignore (in answering that question), the fact that most trans people are wealthy middle class westerners who, when it comes down to it, would rather keep their money than give it to the poor suffering children so heartlessly exploited by those mean NGOs.

The issue here is that this intersectionality works against the poor. It means that when Helen Mirren says what she says, instead of being horrified by her disgusting display of greed when others are starving, we actually sympathise with her as a victim of oppression. She gets a free pass on the gross property theft, because she's a woman, talking about 'women's rights'

Likewise with these other identity groups. They're acting as exculpatory devices, not progress but a means of stagnation.

"Feeling guilty about your luxury town house whilst others are homeless? No problem, as long as you're not a white male (bad luck if you are) you too can be a victim, then you don't need to do anything about the poor because everyone has to do something about your plight - poor you"

Again, if this is nothing but conspiratorial whinging, then simply point to the identity politics based campaign that has actually helped the poorest in our world. I'm all ears, ready to shown my error. Honestly, I mean it. I'm in this for the same reasons as you, I just want to get behind campaigns that actually work, but I see zero evidence that these do anything more than mildly benefit the already wealthy whilst sucking oxygen from any campaign actually trying to address poverty.

Women and trans people are included in the working class and proletariat. — Moliere

Yes, but their problems are different and not addressed by the campaigns supposed to represent them. Proletariat women and proletariat trans-folk have their relative oppression to deal with but more pressing is the lack of shelter, or enough money to buy food. The fact that some bourgeois Hollywood actress can now enjoy her million dollar photo shoot without fear of sexual harassment doesn't put food on the table. Try walking into an Indian clothing sweatshop and see if the (undoubtedly male) owners have been affected by the social approbation generated by the #MeToo movement. Tell you what might help there though. Is if the fucking actress we're all so concerned about would stop buying the Louis Vuitton clothing she's currently prancing about in on the cover of Vogue.

Again, it's simply naive to think that this is coincidence. That the only campaigns which receive any air time (from the bought and paid for conglomerate media) are the ones which have zero impact on the ever greedy consumer machine. "Equal pay for women, equal bathroom rights for trans,... Anything you like... just DON'T STOP BUYING!"

any workplace organizing I've done frequently runs into problems of both gender and race. So in practical terms it's required if one wants to do something about class, such as form a union or pull off a strike, because these identities will be utilized to divide your group otherwise. — Moliere

Exactly. Utilized by whom? Not the owning classes, they don't even need to get involved. As in...

The reason the left is weak isn't because we're different. It's because thems who own are good at divide-and-conquer. — Moliere

... just isn't true.

It wasn't the owning classes that split feminism over trans issues. It was trans campaigners who did that.

Suzanne Moore wasn't chased out of the Guardian by the CEO of Goldman Sachs, she was chased out by her fellow left-wing writers.

Kathleen Stock wasn't pelted with eggs by the Proud Boys. She was pelted with eggs by other left-wing activists who disagreed with her about trans issues.

Russell Brand (bless him!) wasn't vilified after his Jeremy Paxman interview by the Right-wing press. He was vilified by other left-wing voices (feminists) who objected to his use of the word 'bird'.

The progressive Vinay Prasad hasn't been hounded for his views about children's education during covid by Fox News. He was hounded by other progressives because they disagreed with him about masking policy.

Jeremy Corbyn wasn't kicked out of the Labour Party by the Koch empire. He was kicked out by other members of the Labour Party who disagreed with him about Israel.

The owning classes are, thus far, just leaning back in their leather-backed club chairs watching their opposition eat itself, they don't even need to lift a finger.

What to do about it given the attitudes of most people, though? — Moliere

Simple. Stop giving mass air time to trivial campaigns (don't stop the campaigns though, obviously), stop treating every difference of opinion over strategy as if it were defecting to the Nazis, and start campaigning on the stuff that really matters as a priority.