lottarottah

[lottarottah]

Oh now the donkey is making even louder retarded noises. It's not about the concepts, it's about concrete realities. It's not about the men being ok, it's about whether it's worse or less worse. Nobody is claming that no woman has ever been beaten. It's your chronic brainfuck that made up that claim. You're still distording and being as stupid and dishonest as you can it seems. Let me reformulate the question for you, as chaos seems to reign in your little head. Do you consider that the harm translated into millions of deaths, disabilities, illnesses, and general suffering caused by globalized capitalism is worse than the harm caused to a single person?

If you think that a bunch of random brown men, a group more excluded from systemic power than white women, beating up a white girl on a street corner is worse than the white men who control key social structures to uphold patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—shaping entire nations— you're a white supremacist, ready for white nationalism

[lottarottah]

Wtf is this? Why are you adding a fatal ending to the beating when it's simply a matter of being beaten? Why are you personally implicating yourself when I'm simply asking you to judge this hypothetical from an outsider's point of view? Furthermore, why the fuck are you individualizing globalized capitalist violence when it should be seen as a worldwide system in my example? Why are you reducing capitalism ramifications to being badly paid, being dissmissed and unrepresented in goverment (lmfaooo) ?

Your reply also implies that the millions and millions of deaths, disabilities, diseases and suffering (on top of the slave like state it imposes) capitalism generates is a better situation than a beaten/dead individual. That's how retardedly immoral your individualist and deeply egocentric answer is.

If you think that a bunch of random brown men, a group more excluded from systemic power than white women, beating up a white girl on a street corner is worse than the white men who control key social structures to uphold patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—shaping entire nations— you're a white supremacist, ready for white nationalism

[lottarottah]

Lmfao now she dodges the question by trying to shame me with her thinly veiled anti-intellectualism. It's so cringe to use the ''well adjusted person'' thing when you are that active on tumblr. Are u aware that u are attacking yourself and ur friends orr

If you think that a bunch of random brown men, a group more excluded from systemic power than white women, beating up a white girl on a street corner is worse than the white men who control key social structures to uphold patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—shaping entire nations— you're a white supremacist, ready for white nationalism

[lottarottah]

So you agree? An individual beater is worse or just as bad as the violences demanded by globalized capitalism (aka white corporatists) to function, for example?

If you think that a bunch of random brown men, a group more excluded from systemic power than white women, beating up a white girl on a street corner is worse than the white men who control key social structures to uphold patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—shaping entire nations— you're a white supremacist, ready for white nationalism

[lottarottah]

It's not ''punching down'' here for the simple fact that white women have institutional power over brown men in white societies thanks to white men (and don't start putting words into my mouth - i'm not saying it's good, the act is bad and should be denounced).

A random white woman being beaten up by a brown guy is in no way evidence that white women as a group are ''unprotected'' politically or that their institutinal privilege is being disrupted by a simple individual aggression of one of their individual members. It happens even with big CEOs. Members of dominants group are not totally immune to physical aggression by memebers of subaltern classes yeah, whatever, that doesn't mean they aren't institutionally protected or have no/little power over them.

However, it's worth pointing out, before you go on a rant, that yes, white women are less institutionally protected than white men. The latter can also revoke the former's protections, but this is not true in relation to brown men, in white contexts.

If you think that a bunch of random brown men, a group more excluded from systemic power than white women, beating up a white girl on a street corner is worse than the white men who control key social structures to uphold patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—shaping entire nations— you're a white supremacist, ready for white nationalism

[lottarottah]

Omg... I don't dismiss it because she's white, you illiterate fuck. I recontexualize the violence, its nature and I denounce the feelings of many white radfems that interpersonal violence is worse than systemic violence, as well pointing out that white women in white society have power over brown men, which is usually erased by white "radical" feminists.

Stop using concepts you clearly don't understand, it's embarrassing. This is not a race reductionist approach, as sex is factored into race dynamics here. Can't you read ? ''white woman'' ''brown man'' "more excluded from systemic power than white women'' ?

How is mentioning women of color (a group even more excluded from systemic power than brown men) relevant here? What does it contradict ? If I assert that brown men have even less access to systemic power than white women, what do you think that i'm implying for brown women lol ? That they're privileged compared to...brown men?! lmao? Is that the conclusion your brain reached ? Again, these are just tired hallucinations. Nowhere in my post do I say or imply that racism and patriarchy are mutually exclusive, I even admit their coexistence/interconnection with "white men who control ...." (aka white supremacist patriarchy). it's just a delusion on your part because you have terrible reading comprehension skills.

''not living in the west'' you're so confused omg. Again, not relevant bc the subject here is in the context of white societies.

Interpersonal male violence , from socially powerless groups on top of that (like a brown guy beating up a white girl) should never, ever be priorized *over* systemic violence in collective struggles, otherwise you blind yourself to large-scale violence, power assymetries between groups and make your own movement vulnerable to reactionary infiltration.

It's not about complaining that brown men can't become CEOs or whatever, it's lamenting about the fact that white radfems' understand violence primary in liberal terms - downplaying or outright erasing systemic violence/race-gender large scale dynamics.

You've missed the point so, so badly.

If you think that a bunch of random brown men, a group more excluded from systemic power than white women, beating up a white girl on a street corner is worse than the white men who control key social structures to uphold patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—shaping entire nations— you're a white supremacist, ready for white nationalism

[lottarottah]

You missed the point so badly. Please, actually focus and read my post again.

First of all. You have the exact type of view i'm denouncing in my posts. You moslty narrow down violence/oppression to ''personal act of physical harm''. Patriarchy is not this liberal crap ''when a man kills a woman'' or ''a man throws acid at a woman" women, even teenagers are capable of that, but those facts in themsleves don't imply we live in a matriarchy or teen supremacy. Patriarchy is when group of men hold systemic power (like legal, as u said, among others) and use it to serve their own interests.

Secondly I was obviously talking about non-white men in white-dominated societies, the nature of their violence, their access to systemic power... how can you not see it? Why bring up what men do in nonwhite countries? Or the condition of women in non-white societies?! As if i made a comparison betwen different countires ?! Just annoyingly out of topic..You fundamentally did not understand my post.

//White nationalism and white radfems

Radblr is not discussing enough how liberal ideas of violence (& thus of oppression) are driving (or rather mantaining) so many white, self-identified radical feminists to white nationalism.

Another issue with radblr is the use of official crime statistics to argue that men oppress women. These statistics are not only biased for various reasons (selection bias) but even if they were taken as completely representative of reality (which they aren't at all), they still would fail to demonstrate, on their own, that men oppress women. They end up being used by illiterate white radfems to frame non white men as more ''violent" (: understood in liberal ways) than white men, and thus as bigger danger to women. As non-liberals, we understand that oppression requires systemic domination, which these statistics do not capture.

Men oppress women because they hold systemic power

and use it to exploit, maintain subjugation/domination through various means. This systemic power, not individual or immediate acts of physical harm, is what makes them oppressive. So even if a group of people is simply more criminal—or wrongly recorded as such by the (biased) justice system—but doesn't hold systemic power, is thus not engaging in oppression by the mere practice of these acts. While this behavior constitute violence, it is not systemic and, therefore, not oppressive.

All this to say that, whether nonwhite men are more likely to commit immediate, personal acts of physical harm or just more likely to be targeted and convicted for such acts by justice, they are not, overall, more violent than white men when *systemic violence* is considered. Systemic violence, a large-scale issue led by white men, defines oppression. Therefore, politically, nonwhite men do not represent a bigger danger to women, as they lack the power to make decisions that affect the entire nation *unlike white men*. Nonwhite men under white supremacist societies have power at the community level, not at the systemic.

I’d argue, more controversially, that considering the social condition of nonwhite men and white women, the latter hold power over the former and oppress them in a way that cannot be reciprocated due to their differing ranks in the race-gender hierarchy. This isn’t lateral violence—it’s vertical violence by white women, and thus, domination. While it’s taboo out there to acknowledge it, white women have an overall better access to societal power than nonwhite men. Which means that white men tend to prioritize white women over nonwhite men.

[lottarottah]

Stupid in such a white way and self-confident on top of it, is really something. Rly embarrassing

You point out to another white "rad'' fem that, under white supremacist societies, white women have better access to systemic power than nonwhite men, as evidenced by their overall socioeconomic outcomes, and they reply with a ''you're a misogynistic idiot, you must be a man''...Like bots

As long as this movement remains led by colorblind whites, it will constantly sideline and distort the race-gender structure under white patriarchy, leaving it particularly vulnerable to the racial propaganda of the right. Improve yourself or, frankly, get co-opted.

[lottarottah]

You point out to another white "rad'' fem that, under white supremacist societies, white women have better access to systemic power than nonwhite men, as evidenced by their overall socioeconomic outcomes, and they reply with a ''you're a misogynistic idiot, you must be a man''...Like bots

As long as this movement remains led by colorblind whites, it will constantly sideline and distort the race-gender structure under white patriarchy, leaving it particularly vulnerable to the racial propaganda of the right. Improve yourself or, frankly, get co-opted.

[lottarottah]

You must be another illiterate, colorblind white. Shush

//White nationalism and white radfems

Radblr is not discussing enough how liberal ideas of violence (& thus of oppression) are driving (or rather mantaining) so many white, self-identified radical feminists to white nationalism.

Another issue with radblr is the use of official crime statistics to argue that men oppress women. These statistics are not only biased for various reasons (selection bias) but even if they were taken as completely representative of reality (which they aren't at all), they still would fail to demonstrate, on their own, that men oppress women. They end up being used by illiterate white radfems to frame non white men as more ''violent" (: understood in liberal ways) than white men, and thus as bigger danger to women. As non-liberals, we understand that oppression requires systemic domination, which these statistics do not capture.

Men oppress women because they hold systemic power

and use it to exploit, maintain subjugation/domination through various means. This systemic power, not individual or immediate acts of physical harm, is what makes them oppressive. So even if a group of people is simply more criminal—or wrongly recorded as such by the (biased) justice system—but doesn't hold systemic power, is thus not engaging in oppression by the mere practice of these acts. While this behavior constitute violence, it is not systemic and, therefore, not oppressive.

All this to say that, whether nonwhite men are more likely to commit immediate, personal acts of physical harm or just more likely to be targeted and convicted for such acts by justice, they are not, overall, more violent than white men when *systemic violence* is considered. Systemic violence, a large-scale issue led by white men, defines oppression. Therefore, politically, nonwhite men do not represent a bigger danger to women, as they lack the power to make decisions that affect the entire nation *unlike white men*. Nonwhite men under white supremacist societies have power at the community level, not at the systemic.

I’d argue, more controversially, that considering the social condition of nonwhite men and white women, the latter hold power over the former and oppress them in a way that cannot be reciprocated due to their differing ranks in the race-gender hierarchy. This isn’t lateral violence—it’s vertical violence by white women, and thus, domination. While it’s taboo out there to acknowledge it, white women have an overall better access to societal power than nonwhite men. Which means that white men tend to prioritize white women over nonwhite men.

[lottarottah]

If you think that a bunch of random brown men, a group more excluded from systemic power than white women, beating up a white girl on a street corner is worse than the white men who control key social structures to uphold patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—shaping entire nations— you're a white supremacist, ready for white nationalism

[lottarottah]

//White nationalism and white radfems

Radblr is not discussing enough how liberal ideas of violence (& thus of oppression) are driving (or rather mantaining) so many white, self-identified radical feminists to white nationalism.

Another issue with radblr is the use of official crime statistics to argue that men oppress women. These statistics are not only biased for various reasons (selection bias) but even if they were taken as completely representative of reality (which they aren't at all), they still would fail to demonstrate, on their own, that men oppress women. They end up being used by illiterate white radfems to frame non white men as more ''violent" (: understood in liberal ways) than white men, and thus as bigger danger to women. As non-liberals, we understand that oppression requires systemic domination, which these statistics do not capture.

Men oppress women because they hold systemic power

and use it to exploit, maintain subjugation/domination through various means. This systemic power, not individual or immediate acts of physical harm, is what makes them oppressive. So even if a group of people is simply more criminal—or wrongly recorded as such by the (biased) justice system—but doesn't hold systemic power, is thus not engaging in oppression by the mere practice of these acts. While this behavior constitute violence, it is not systemic and, therefore, not oppressive.

All this to say that, whether nonwhite men are more likely to commit immediate, personal acts of physical harm or just more likely to be targeted and convicted for such acts by justice, they are not, overall, more violent than white men when *systemic violence* is considered. Systemic violence, a large-scale issue led by white men, defines oppression. Therefore, politically, nonwhite men do not represent a bigger danger to women, as they lack the power to make decisions that affect the entire nation *unlike white men*. Nonwhite men under white supremacist societies have power at the community level, not at the systemic.

I’d argue, more controversially, that considering the social condition of nonwhite men and white women, the latter hold power over the former and oppress them in a way that cannot be reciprocated due to their differing ranks in the race-gender hierarchy. This isn’t lateral violence—it’s vertical violence by white women, and thus, domination. While it’s taboo out there to acknowledge it, white women have an overall better access to societal power than nonwhite men. Which means that white men tend to prioritize white women over nonwhite men.

[lottarottah]

Take a white, self-identified radical feminist who, instead of clinging primarily to systemic/structural notions of violence, as the "radical" in her title should suggest, relies on liberal ideas of violence. (eg: personal and immediate acts of physical harm),

combine this liberal view of violence (& thus of patriarchy) with your typical statistical/sociological illiteracy regarding crime and crime statistics,

then expose her to (biased, but she can't see it) official crime statistics showing that racial minority men are over-representated in certain types of crime, and boom! she is now being radicalized by right-wing racial propaganda !

Ignore the dangers of basing your politcal theory on liberal notions at your risk and perils, but don't be shocked then when you see a growing, overt racist discourse and white nationalist talking points inside your own movement.

Some of these racist/white nationalist "rad" fems are genuine, others are right-wing white men trying to infiltrate the movement to take it down a white nationalist (patriarchal) path, because they've recognized its blind spots and are exploiting them.

[lottarottah]

You're just another boring idiot with surface level understanding of gender, like most feminists from here.

Cis and trans are still gender categories because they relate to social formations around sex. If you read any recent work in social science regarding gender, you should know that the very fact of dividing humanity into different categories of sex/gender and even sexuality, such as masculine/feminine, man/woman, male/female, cisgender/transgender, intersex/dyadic, homosexual/heterosexual, et.. is considered as being part of gender.

Also, the question is why do you (as in TIRFs in general) decide that woman is just defined by social perception, and therefore one is a woman if one is perceived as such... but trans and cis are not? Why this selective application ? Couldn't we similarly argue that woman refers to biological sex, a definition shared by most people, just like trans/cis are based on sex ? So how your environment perceives you is irrelevant to the category you belong to

I have a question for TIRFs. If you believe that transwomen are women because they are perceived as such in their everyday lives, why don't you consider transwomen who consistently pass as "cis" women as....cis women? It's inconsistent

[lottarottah]

There are so many self-identified radfems who, despite claiming to be part of radical feminism - a school of thought inspired by Marxism - still cling to liberal ideas of violence. I have to say that feminist groups who agree with such notions of violence have an important risk to be radicalized by right-wing propaganda.

[lottarottah]

Here we see members of r/mensrights expressing support for trans-identified males.

[lottarottah]

Sexualization is therefore an aggravating factor, which confirms what I've already said.

Why is *unpaid* care work seen as a problem, while *unpaid* sex is seen as the ideal? Why is there no equivalent "end demand" approach to care work, even though it lies at the heart of women's subordination and objectification?