←back to thread

Female Founder Secrets: Men Clamming Up

(femfosec.com)
1005 points femfosec | 2 comments | 28 Mar 21 18:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.739s | source
Show context
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf ◴[28 Mar 21 19:10 UTC] No.26613220[source]▶
This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. The shitty part is that I'm pretty sure 99% of people are reasonable human beings but the media has to make it seem like that isn't the case so the risk equation changes. Similar to how kids used to roam around the neighborhood but now it's deemed too risky because the media makes it seem like there are murderers lurking around every corner.
replies(14): >>26613585 #>>26613799 #>>26614012 #>>26614097 #>>26614153 #>>26614208 #>>26614300 #>>26614313 #>>26614525 #>>26614526 #>>26614533 #>>26614620 #>>26614665 #>>26614667 #
idyio ◴[28 Mar 21 19:56 UTC] No.26613799[source]▶
> people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy

This supposed hierarchy of oppression, based on identity characteristics such as race, gender and sexuality, really is the biggest scam going.

Almost all of the oppression we see around us can be explained by wealth disparities, corruption, and abuse of power. Yet, identarians insist on shoehorning everything into their flawed worldview.

The Black Lives Matter movement was a telling example of this - police brutality is indeed an ongoing problem in society, but it doesn't just apply to black people. It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing. Just look at how they treat homeless people, drug addicts, and so on, regardless of race.

Another is celebrating people as tokens regardless of their actions. First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this? Rather reminds me of: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co90umqUsAAdgQI?format=jpg

We would all do well to be critical of how identity politics is being used to mask the real root causes of oppression in our society. The so-called left wing of politics is the worst for this too, and I say this as a life-long leftist. Why make everything about identity; where has the traditional focus on class gone?

replies(9): >>26613830 #>>26614026 #>>26614041 #>>26614319 #>>26614322 #>>26614458 #>>26614596 #>>26614630 #>>26615548 #
fao_ ◴[28 Mar 21 20:43 UTC] No.26614319[source]▶
> The Black Lives Matter movement was a telling example of this - police brutality is indeed an ongoing problem in society, but it doesn't just apply to black people. It's anyone the police feel they can get away with abusing. Just look at how they treat homeless people, drug addicts, and so on, regardless of race.

And if you actually stuck around in leftist circles you would see how the "indentarians" as you so called them are in opposition to those, too.

> First mixed-race female Vice President of the USA - okay, but what sort of shitty role model is this?

Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!

I think you've essentially misunderstood why there was a push against solely class-based analysis, and why identity-specific systemic oppression was introduced to this concept -- the two are not in opposition. The reason it was brought in was because measures to deconstruct and eliminate class-based oppression, often kept systemic inequality between identity.

For example, the push to eliminate sexism has for the most part only advantaged white women (You'll have to trust me on the proof for this since I'm writing this while on the go -- however look up books like Carceral Capitalism and "Why I Don't Talk To White People About Race" for examples). The introduction of how your identity impacts how class boundaries affect you was necessary to better understand the dynamics and better shed and cast off systems of oppression

replies(1): >>26614566 #
sidlls ◴[28 Mar 21 21:05 UTC] No.26614566[source]▶
I can see your comment in the context of democratic party circles, but not leftist circles, at least in the US. I have difficulty placing it in the leftist circles I run in, which generally view politics in the US as consisting of a center/far right party (democrats) and reactionary fascists (republicans).

> Everyone I know in identity politics circles was critical of her too! Indeed!

I'm quite skeptical of this claim. For the most part the people pushing race and gender identity narratives in the US had at best mild criticism of Ms. Harris, and were mainly focused on her multi-racial identity and its historical significance. Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.

replies(1): >>26616614 #
1. fao_ ◴[29 Mar 21 01:05 UTC] No.26616614[source]▶
> I have difficulty placing it in the leftist circles I run in, which generally view politics in the US as consisting of a center/far right party (democrats) and reactionary fascists (republicans).

The same view shared by myself and my fellow 'intersectional-ists'. I haven't heard of anyone aside from 'centrists' and fascists that adopt a different viewpoint? Perhaps there is a subset of fools on breadtube or facebook, sure, but they are vastly outnumbered.

> Almost as if her terrible politics simply didn't matter because of her identity.

Well then your lenses are vastly, vastly different to mine, and do not match up with both those in modern academic circles (Like, literally just read any new literature covering intersectionality and the introduction of it to communism), those on the ground in protests, and those present in progressive/queer groups (like me). It's worth noting that at the moment there is a huge divide between "progressive" communists, and, well, "regressive" communists (For want of better terms). From what I observed from stalking facebook commie groups, most of the latter are still stuck with 100 year old debates -- and while they have a huge amount of theoretical knowledge, they have no practical contributions to any revolutionary movements thusfar. For example, most of the discussion I observed was focused on rehabilitating Stalin's image, whereas most of the 'on the ground' antifacist-aligned folks are of the mind that that isn't really something modern communism should waste it's time on.

I would suggest at least reading some modern intersectional writing, if only to better understand the thing you're arguing against. The basic focus of intersectionality and how the systemic abuse created by late-stage capitalism impacts specific groups differently (The 'intersection' of those groups and the oppression they face), and how movements (even revolutionary) to improve conditions have backfired have been around for at least 60 years if Tony Cliff's 1978 writing "Why Socialists Should Support Gays" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1978/08/gays.ht...) is anything to go by -- at least if you will give me the small leeway of temporarily ignoring how controversial Tony Cliff is as a figure in Communism.

If you are in search of one of the progressive communities I talk of, Something Awful has recently (last 5ish years) turned into a very leftist-heavy place, with frequent debate about neoliberalism, capitalism, etc. You will be able to ask questions there and receive answers and engage in productive discussion.

'Disease and Disaster' (Debate and Discussion): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4...

And 'C-SPAM' (The politics subforum): https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2...

Are both good places to talk about this with progressive, mostly-intersectional communists. Just take note a lot of the thread titles are in jest, you should navigate to the last five pages and pick up context as you go (A lot of the threads have been running since 2016!) and espousing neoliberalism in an annoying way is a swift path to a probation :)

replies(1): >>26616820 #
2. sidlls ◴[29 Mar 21 01:38 UTC] No.26616820[source]▶
Communism isn't a synonym for leftism. There is plenty of debate regarding the merits of intersectionalism. I wouldn't call it rigorous or academic, as neither intersectionalists nor many of the people who find it objectionable are particularly analytical, and their resistance to empirical methods isn't particularly inspiring.

Suffice it to say that I don't think you're on as solid intellectual footing as you think you are.

I have stairs in my house, too, by the way. SA has always had a pseudo-leftist bent, even when we were passing around videos of 9/11 set to the tune of Benny Hill. I have a few photoshop friday entries, in fact, if that's still a thing. D&D is the self-absorbed, ego-driven SA analog of stoners marveling over their own hands at 1am at the local Denny's. No thanks.