I wish there were a term for working class feminism

khalvin8:

higglety:

thepeacockangel:

blindedscale:

khalvin8:

thepeacockangel:

khalvin8:

queernuck:

khalvin8:

queernuck:

khalvin8:

thepeacockangel:

Separate from feminism because like feminism has a long history of focusing on the ideas and interests of bourgeois women, and ignoring or pathologizing working class women’s needs and so like a lot of women (rightly) associate it with stuff that does no good for them and also it would be nice to be able to find each other without ending up in a sea of bougie bullshit.  Femmunism? Lady’s Class War? gyno-communism?  Ladyism?

egalitarianism?

lmao holy shit imagine having this much of a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberatory movements are supposed to be. instead of concieving of a movement for the rights of women that concentrates on the struggles of working-class women implicitly or explicitly excluded from other forms of advocacy…just say the problem’s already fixed! Egalitarianism, that’s it!

the struggles of working-class women

which are?

Racialized misogyny, the expensiveness of reproductive care, the cost of hormones and operations like facial feminization surgery, the cost of things like clothes and makeup that are necessary for finding higher-paying jobs, a lack of maternity leave, there are many women’s issues that specifically impact working class women hardest. And yet you laugh about it.

Racialized misogyny, the expensiveness of reproductive care, the cost of
hormones and operations like facial feminization surgery, the cost of
things like clothes and makeup that are necessary for finding
higher-paying jobs, a lack of maternity leave, there are many women’s
issues that specifically impact working class women hardest. And yet you
laugh about it.

Laugh? Who laughed and when? You’re assuming I’m belittling you and your search for representation.

Racialized misogyny

Um, two buzzwords that are only tangentially related. How can you stop Humanity being hateful? Is that anymore possible than calming the Hurricane and quieting the earthquake? You can’t control people. That’s enslavement and it is wrong.

the expensiveness of reproductive care, the cost of
hormones and operations like facial feminization surgery, the cost of
things like clothes and makeup that are necessary for finding
higher-paying jobs,

I agree. Medical practices in the US are not only expensive. they are artificially expensive due a myriad of reasons. Female products are both expensive and in-expensive. You can shop Walmart for some basic supplies. They do cost money. But not half as much as the top end shit you find elsewhere. And there is support for helping women AND men getting prepared for an interview and obtaining basics for themselves. This is your class argument. That impoverished women are in need. I just don’t see what makes them in any more need than the impoverished men beside them. Being poor isn’t a punishment. No one deserves wealth. Wealth is earned. And it by the grace and mercy of other human beings that charity exists. The government has neither grace or mercy. Therefore it abolishes charity.

a lack of maternity leave,

I agree. An employer should provide maternity leave. Many do. But is it the federal government’s job to enforce that? Is it really? That seems more something a State should regulate.

1. And yet somehow we’ve managed to change the attitude that women should never work outside the home since the 50s

2. I’m a communist, so I don’t believe in having a state, and in a world where the productive power so vastly exceeds meeting everyone’s minimum requirements, people actually deserve wealth, and charity is inconsistent and about making the giver feel good rather than putting the power in the hands of people in need

3.  I believe that the boss class should be abolished along with the federal and state governments, and that all industry should be run democratically so… no

Ugh fucking liberals

1) prior to the 50s. Women were more than expected to work outside the home. Most did.

2) Well, I’m not a communist and I don’t think I can be convinced Communism works. I think regulating capitalism with socialism is breaking the economy. But economy is only part of the reason medical practices are over-expensive. The largest factor seems to be government interventionism. But government does provide services and is the protector of freedoms. So I’m not an anarchist.

3) um.I’m not going to argue you here. I’m actually going to encourage you to try it out. Start a business and run it on pure democracy system. See if it works. There is no reason you can’t. There are enough like minded people on the internet that I think you can start a cottage game studio or publishing firm. If it works. It works. But you telling other they need to abolish the ‘boss class’ is you setting yourself up as the governmental body the rules their actions.

and fuck liberals. 😛 I hope the OP is sitting through this. Their comments are brokering actual discussion.

Fun Fact: Khalvin is a Moderate Conservative. 

1. Women were paid significantly less, and middle class women were expected to stop working as soon as they married http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/02/art2full.pdf.
2. That’s not socialism, socialism means the workers own the means of production. State ownership is Keynesianism when it’s partial and state capitalism when it’s complete and something we oppose
3. And peasants getting together to revolt and depose their feudal lord and institute democracy makes them feudal lords. I believe in direct democracy (as in non representative, everyone votes, there are no politicians. Also heard of Mondragon? How about steam? They’re democratically run
4. No he’s a classical liberal, conservatives are like cross and crown traditionalists

So…….. @khalvin8, did you miss the part in US history where women were encouraged to join the workforce during WWII, and then pushed back out of the workforce and back into the home when the war ended? Have you noticed the fact that even today, women are expected to settle down and have babies, and if that happens, the default expectation is that she will leave work or scale back her hours in order to be a caregiver, and that if the opposite happens (she continues to work as a breadwinner, and her husband chooses to be a stay at home dad), it’s considered surprising and transgressive? Have you noticed how often female celebrity who have children are asked where their children are and who’s watching them, verses the same question posed to male celebrities?

Women were and are absolutely not expected to work in the same way men are. Moreover, as with many patriarchal inequalities, this expectation also harms men – the pressure to be a provider and a breadwinner, and the devaluation of time with their children puts undue strain on fathers’ emotional wellbeing (which, thanks to society’s toxic construct of masculinity and its aversion to emotions, they are ill-equipped to handle). Plus, the perception of men as breadwinners and simultaneously more financially stable and inherently less nurturing is how you get inequality in alimony and custody rulings.

I realize I went off on a tangent there, and @thepeacockangel, I apologize for hijacking your post. I just got my hackles up a bit and felt like I needed stick my nose in.

Whose expectation is that? Patriarchy? If it is a system. it has actors. Who are the Kings of Patriarchy? Where is their structure?

Your jumping at shadows. Maybe your Familiy wanted that. But no one outside you sphere of family gives two shits if you have kids.There is no legislative framework preventing women from working. On the contrary there are three bureaucracies dedicated to helping women enter and withstand the workforce.

I agree that women are free to work if they want that. And my opinion is most definitely the majority in the US. Your arguing against a shadow.

Oh lordy, ok so see this is the problem with liberals, you refuse to see unintentionally created systems as systems, systems can often be emergent phenomenon (see: language, every life form that has ever evolved, agriculture) and although they do not emerge intentionally, we can use intent to change them.  Like language is not the result of legislation, and yet it unquestionably has structure, and although it is an emergent phenomenon it is changeable by conscious effort.  Like we can regularize spelling (as we did) make a conscious effort to make it less socially acceptable to use slurs (which we did, white people say the n-word a lot less than we did historically).  Animals are emergent phenomenon, systems that are the result of evolution, but we actually have power over emergent phenomenon, and so like selective breeding is possible.  Like surely you understand that there are social conventions and expectations and informal cultural rules that effect how life is lived?  There is no legislation preventing you from wandering around in a bathrobe and slippers but you probably don’t do it, because it’s a social convention.  There is no legislation stating that bankers should wear suits, people would be upset at a banker who did not and consider them unprofessional, even though whether they’re wearing a suit or a playboy bunny costume, it doesn’t really effect their performance.  There’s no legislation or good reason not to eat insects, but there’s a cultural taboo and so most of us don’t do it, and in fact if you were to go on a picnic with your friends, and bring a big serving of tasty grubs with you to eat, your friends would likely not invite you back.  You would be socially punished for wandering around in public in your pajamas, you would be socially punished for eating grubs. 

AND IN ANY CASE I was arguing that we’ve managed to make it more acceptable for women in the US to work, when previously it was less acceptable, which means you can in fact change cultural attitudes and reduce hatred.