People ****ing died to get where we are now, Birdman. Saying there is no difference is simply beyond.

Crossnerd, you are entitled to have your opinions. And if you disagree with the view I have expressed in the thread that is fine. But don’t say the view is a “male POV” when that is demonstrably not true.

many people in those groups disagree with you, at least on the "far" part. i think we all agree on the "worse" part

You also keep misrepresenting what I said. I have specifically said there are differences many many times in the past 100 posts I have made.

I call.

Go ahead and demonstrate it, then.

Show me some think pieces by non-white feminists who argue that there is no discernible difference between the two parties when it comes to the daily lives of American women.

I just posted a quote by Hellen Keller. But also, again, I did not say there wasn’t a difference.

Who? Who are all these feminists of color arguing theres no difference between the two parties? Much less that they'd be better off under Republican polocies.

Cite your sources.

I'll say it again, it is a distinctly and privileged male POV to argue there is no discernible difference in peoples daily lives under the two different parties.

Crossnerd, you need to go reread my posts. No one said there was no discernible difference. You are tearing down a strawman

The argument is that significant, lasting change, will happen outside the ballot box.

quick google found this

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b07ff75b001456

You said both parties are institutionally misogynistic so voting doesn't matter, and theres almost no material difference between the two parties.

I say thats a nice little male POV you have there, buddy!

You live in a world where you have so much equity that you can theorize about these things, but in the real world where its been less than 100 years since women could even vote and we still don't have dominion over our own bodies, voting actually very much matters for us and there is very much a material difference between the two parties.

The only thing we can agree on in any of the things you've said is that institutional misogyny is universal across the parties (because all the parties are made up primarily of men). I actually do think one of the solutions is to vote more women into office, more women CEOs, etc.

You just get to talk imaginary hypothetical utopia nonsense because you are a man.

winona laduke is another example. she was ralph nader's running mate. she despises the democratic party

I mean, do you actually think that if capitalism ended tomorrow, women would be in a safe spot? In what way does YOUR system guarantee that women won't again be subjugated?

Oh, in this system men will suddenly be decent people and everything will be la-di-dah! Please.

This is why I ignore most of your ramblings. You never think about it from our POV. Only a man's, where you are safe and you are still guaranteed to be a decider.

Yeah this is white feminism. You either have not listened to the many women who feel similar to me or you are ignoring them. I am a man, so if you want to ignore what I say that is fine. But there is no shortage of women who will reiterate similar sentiments.

I have said it before itt that my ideas are not original. I get what I think by reading other leftists—many of them women or PoC

it's not because he's a man. he'd talk the same nonsense if he was a woman. i would too. a lot of women talk this nonsense. my gf does. winona laduke does. hellen keller did. that huffpost writer does. black panther women did and still do. AIM women did and still do

If you wanted to start in on how capitalism is sexist and how we would transition from this system to another, then I'd be 100% on board. But usually when you talk about imperialism etc, I don't feel included.

you're right. it's true that women would almost certainly still be in trouble if capitalism ended tomorrow

I'd start to participate in Birdman's imperialism convos if ever he would consider it from both POVs

You mention you ignore my ramblings, which is likely why you are not actually aware of what I have said. You have repeatedly misrepresented my opinion itt even as I am repeating it in the midst of our conversation.

Here you once again misrepresent it. I have specifically said socialism does would not magically fix the environment, or racism, or misogyny. Yet here you are saying I asserted the opposite. Why not actually read my posts then? You loudly declare your ignorance of what I post/think but then want me to defend assertions I never made.

Misogyny, racism, the environment, etc, will never be fixed under capitalism. Therefore it must be abolished. Does that mean abolishing it will magically fix these issues? Of course not. What it means is that IF you want to fix it you need to start with a social upheaval where you change the power structures that currently comprise the status quo. THEN you can START working to fix these issues. Socialism merely gives you a society that has the ABILITY to end misogyny.

I think you think the way you come at these things more similarly than you actually do, fwiw. You never seem to address the concerns women might have considering a huge overturn of the power structure- mainly setting it back up again and what the specific differences for us are going to be.

Then you say dumb **** like it doesn't matter if we vote.

i know chomsky and zinn are men, but they are feminists too. i def consider myself a feminist. i'd say birdman does too.

naomi goodman, def a feminist. arundhati roy. naomi klein. some of the names are starting to come back to me now

these are all people who hate the dem party. i'll link a great a little piece by arundhati roy. let me find it...

5 minutes long



she isn't addressing feminist issues specifically in this essay, but addressing inequality in a pretty funny poignant way