Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

History of Feminism

In reply to the discussion: Question ... [View all]

F4lconF16

(3,747 posts)
3. Disagree as it was intended, agree in another sense
Thu Feb 19, 2015, 05:57 PM
Feb 2015

As it was stated (and I saw the post) I think that it was meant not to promote the idea that the two issues are entangled, but to promote them as equal and separate issues, which I disagree with.

There is also a huge difference between keeping social rights away from someone and keeping economic comfort away from someone. Social oppression demonizes people; it "otherizes" them and separates them from normal society. It is harmful in an entirely different manner, often much more insidious and raw. The two should not be equated, imo.

That said, I do believe that economic change is necessary to solve social issues and vice versa. THe major socialist movements we have had so far have failed when they could not integrate the two. Capitalism is dependent on the oppression and denigration of entire peoples, and in solving social issues, we strike a blow to that system. By the same token, movements for equality will not succeed without an upheaval of the economic system. As MLK began to realize later in life (and what a few of the socialist movements attempted to fix) is that oppression is driven by economics. Slavery, Jim Crow, the 1000s of years of oppression of women, etc., are all results of an ideology that values profit and growth above human life.

I don't know if I've said this very well, and it's much more complex than what I've said here, but I think it's a decent summary of how I feel about this.

Edit: wow, I read that post totally wrong. I thought it said

"Keeping women (economically well off--I forget what I read it as) while denying them equal rights is not much different than keeping women poor while advocating for their rights.

As it stands, that's just idiotic.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»Question ...»Reply #3