Sunday, July 16, 2017

not allowed to be against things for non-selfish reasons

https://werdbrew.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/white-women-in-robes/

I only skimmed because it's fucking long and stupid.  Maybe I'll read it more thoroughly later to see if it answers my questions.

Who exactly are they accusing and what exactly are they accusing them of?

White women who are pro-choice and pro-option-of-birth-control?  How is that racist?  It's OPTIONAL.  They're not saying anyone has to get an abortion or use birth control.  They say "hey government, don't try to control people's fertility" and the person who wrote that blogpost is mad? because they didn't say every second of every day that the government has tried to control the fertility of not-white people? like, i don't know about this person specifically, but feminists usually say things like "we don't have to talk about everything at once", but then they get mad when a white person mentions a problem and doesn't specify that it affects not-white people more or whatever.  Like, hey, I'm opposed to slavery.  I'm opposed to caging people for non-violent drug crap.  I'm opposed to cops shooting unarmed people who are running away or trying to follow the cops demands.  How in the fuck would mentioning race even help make that more clear?  I'm not opposed to people mentioning race, but why are they opposed to me (etc) not mentioning it?

if a guy is saying rape is wrong, he's not saying it's only wrong to rape men (unless he actually says that).
if i say slavery is wrong, i'm not saying it's only wrong to enslave white people or any other group that I'm in.
if a white woman says that forced sterilization is not ok, that doesn't automatically mean she thinks it's actually ok to do it to anyone who's not white or female.

the blogpost says reproductive justice is
"the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities."
and apparently "white feminism" disagrees with that?  Uh, how?

"margaret sanger wanted inferior people to use birth control and not have babies"
"somehow this made the superior (white, nt, abled) women want to use birth control"
"therefore all white feminists are racist and ableist"

"some white women in the past wanted equality for white women and explicitly wanted to maintain white supremacy, therefore all white feminists are white supremacists"

"Other demonstrators shout loudly and use bullhorns, holding up signs with variations of “The Handmaid’s Tale is not and instruction manual.” True. It’s not. It’s a mirror. And what people see when they look at it is more revealing of their politics than they realize."
doWhen it said it's a mirror, I thought it was saying the story shows white people what they are doing to non-white people, thus blaming all white people for things some white people did/do and saying apparently that current white women are not allowed to be opposed to sex slavery because some different white people engage(d) in or condone(d) sex slavery.  But the last line makes it seem to mean something different.  OK, what do people see in this mirror that you don't like?  The next paragraph does not answer that question.  instead it rambles about other things.

"Within the dominant pro-choice rhetoric of The Handmaid’s Protest and beyond, the language of keeping the government out of “women’s bodies” is not only cisnormative, but it also fails to acknowledge the fact that this same government has already been routinely intruding upon and committing reproductive violences against people of color, the poor, and the disabled for centuries, and has even done so in the very same vein of The Handmaid’s Tale."
How does it fail to acknowledge that things they oppose have been done?  I mean, it's plausible that they aren't constantly saying "this has been done and should not be done anymore".  But just saying "this should not be done" is not the same thing as saying "this has never been done and should never be done".  i've encountered that confusion in countless conversations.  I say "x should not be" and someone says "but x is!" and I say "so the fuck what you fucking stupid asshole who apparently doesn't know how to comprehend words, i just said it shouldn't be".  at that point, they usually say like "oh yeah, i see, i agree".  (there are a few assholes who insist that somehow all that matters is what is and we shouldn't (lol) try to change things, but fuck them).
You know, this would be like if I heard about people farming and killing and eating humans and I objected to it, and some vegan said "but they do that to non-human animals every day, thousands upon thousands of them".  They're assuming, stupidly, that because I didn't mention the non-human animals right then that that must mean I don't care about them.  We're not talking about that right now, we're talking about this.  That's the thing feminists say.  and i agree with it generally.  On a post about fgm, you shouldn't be like "but mgm".  Yes mgm is a terrible terrible problem that needs to be fixed, but this post is about fgm and fgm is worthy of discussion (too).  but actually that's not quite analogous to feminists opposing reproductive crimes.  It's like someone posting about "genital mutilation" and someone assuming that they only meant fgm and responding like "mgm is a way bigger problem than fgm".

i say "cops are terrifying, what with their habit of killing innocent people"
and a hypothetical black person says "you have no right to be afraid, they're not going to kill you".
i think that's what this whole "white feminism" thing is.  they're assuming people are selfish.
I was mad when they banned hairspray, because it's unfair and I knew some of my classmates liked to use hairspray.  i was mad when they banned yo-yos and rubberbands for the same reason.  but people thought it was stupid that i cared.  they thought it was stupid that i wasn't completely selfish.  weird.
If there's an issue that affects some people but not most, and there's a movement for equality or whatever, the mainstream movement won't mention that issue at first, the smaller group can just tell people about that issue, like how would people who aren't affected by it know about it unless someone tells them?  but telling them doesn't have to be like "you ignore our issues", no they just didn't know.  I still don't fucking know, what issues affect non-white women and not white women?  I didn't see any non-white women saying "hey, add this to the list of feminist causes", I just saw them out of nowhere being like "white feminists ignore non-white issues" and none of their articles fucking list any of those alleged issues.  there was one.  i read somewhere that the "right to work" was for middle class women or something, because poor women were already working anyway, and rich women (women who are related to rich men) didn't want to work.  that is interesting, I'm glad someone mentioned it that way, because I had been confused, hearing that women were not allowed to work much, but also hearing about women working in factories and being maids.  (it's class, not race, but that's fine, because this concept applies to any delineation.)  They said for poor women, being a SAHP could be a feminist action.  But.  It is not the case that the "right to work" people were trying to force all women to get jobs.  and maybe they were ignoring the poor women being forced to work, or maybe they just didn't know about that issue, but either way, it's not a feminist issue.  that people have to have jobs to make money to live isn't a feminist issue, because it's not sexist.  them getting paid less or getting rejected from certain jobs because of sex is a feminist issue.  but what sense would it make to fight for a woman's right to not work and be supported by someone else?  That is sexist.  Men have just as much right to not work and be supported by someone else.  Men have just as much right to have free time to spend with their kids.  If there is a movement to convince men to support women as SAHPs, I hate that movement, I oppose it, it is sexist, it is completely fucking ridiculous.  However, a movement to have robots do all the work and support everyone sounds good, if we can actually accomplish it, as opposed to the robots just supporting the rich people and everyone else starving.

reminds me of stefan molynieux.  he was opposed to feminism because it tried to convince women to have jobs.  laurette lynn agreed with him.  she said she wanted to be a SAHP and see her kids all the time.  But what about her husband?  He didn't want to be a SAHP, she said.  I asked.  Good thing then, that he didn't need a masculism movement to get him the right to have a paying job outside the home.  But what about women who don't want to be SAHPs and are being coerced into doing so anyway?  They do need that feminist movement, and laurette lynn is trying to take it away from them.  They want a choice, and she wants to take that choice away, and that pretty effectively takes the choice away from men too.  She supports men working and women staying home, therefore she opposes anything else.  She and stefan seemed to agree, but they inserted a little except for stefan himself.  apparently he (and his wife?) worked and saved up money so they could both take a year off work when their baby was born.  He said it was great and important and everyone should do it if they can, but somehow it's especially important for women to do it.  anyway, now he makes money off his cult, so they still don't have to work.

anyway.  suppose there is a bad thing being done to some people.  it is not wrong to say you oppose that bad thing in general because that includes the people it's currently happening to and anyone else it might happen to in the future and anyone it happened to in the past.

I don't see the point of this article.  It's not even saying "white feminists don't care about this issue that affects a lot of non-white people or disproportionately affects non-white people". It's saying "white feminists care about this issue, but they didn't explicitly say that it disproportionately affects non-white people".  Why in the fuck would they need to mention that?  if someone asks about it, or says otherwise maybe.

hum, what if I talked about poverty but didn't mention the demographics?  non-white people are disproportionately poor, but the issue is poverty, not racism.  Racism is a different (valid) issue. Discuss it elsewhere.  bringing it up here is derailing.

No comments:

Post a Comment