Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

existential1 wrote

As far as I can tell, some people view a comment on reproductive rights to be something that is not to be contextualized with other things. It is inarguably a critical right, not even just as human right even though most people seem to not view these rights as inherent for animals or plants.

RBG's defense of American women's reproductive rights (and women's rights in general) also inarguably seemed to be contingent on conservative views of citizenship. I don't see why this is controversial. Its just reality. She was good on some issues in a way that over time became more obviously narrow. And that is why it seems to be classic white feminism. Its a logic that fights for self interests and lifts up others so long as they cant be differentiated from white women. It isn't particularly unique to RBG or white feminism either, it's a characteristic that seems to apply to those with power and proximity to it over others. Which makes it very odd for a defense of the legacy of a goverment official or political situation based on a government official's death to cause so much consternation, especially here. Is not the anarchist take that government's don't have the authority to make such decisions for people anyway? Also, my family is in several states where reproductive procedures are already nearly impossible. I have young cousins that are alive only because the a-word was not able to be performed given their location and means...and that's in the US today in largely Black communities in the south. Which is why they aren't worried about losing rights they already didnt have. Which is also why the concern can be framed as a white concern...since the concern wasn't there for my folks when they needed it. And thats the reality in the US.

Lastly, I think people are emotionally stressed for very good reason and slightly more sensitive given the times. So nuance isn't a given these days. Lastly lastly, RBG wasn't even close to as radical as Thurgood Marshall, she's the woman equivalent of Obama. She's a really smart centrist that looks progressive because conservatives have been shifting further and further right.

5

[deleted] wrote

2

existential1 wrote

The first paragraph and first line of the third pararagraph describe what people seem to be defending in my own words. RBG isn't mentioned in those bits.

The RBG portion is the 2nd paragraph and last line of the 3rd. Those serve as what I think TW tried to express in their own words and sentiments.

I commented under TW's post here just cuz it was unanswered at the time...not having to do with your take at all.

But addressing your take...I believe adding "white" and "liberal" in front of feminism is a meaningful distinction that provides context necessary to understand TW's take. Also, I don't view TW's statement to be negative "whataboutism" either as I believe intersectional critiques and analysis can very well be used to explain disparities between otherwise similar identities. Which the last sentence of your first paragraph seems to demonstrate you also believe (where u talk about Canada and such). I think maybe the difference is I assumed this is what TW meant and you would've preferred they be more explicit about spelling out this level of distinction. And that difference is what I was talking about in the first two sentences of the last paragraph of my previous comment.

Sorry for shitty formatting and not using quotes, I'm on mobile and phone is trippin.

4

[deleted] wrote

4

existential1 wrote

I don't think we have a common basis of definition of intersectionality if that's your take. Your take seems to assume that the distinction isnt made a reality by those who identify with those labels and judges TW, or myself in this case, as "pitting" white women and against women of color as though it is something to be ideated and has no basis in lived experience. If it has a basis in lived experience, I can't pit anything. It either does or doesn't exist and I can acknowledge it or not. And acknowledging doesn't mean blowing out of proportion, it just means understanding it exists and has implications. I'm sorry I have memories of conversations of family weeping because they can't get the care they need and being livid with the white people (women included) in their state that made their situation what it was. I'll take your previous sarcasm as reason to exit here. Just wanted to give my personal experience to juxtapose what you seem to be insinuating as some intellectual positioning in which I have the power to harm the liberation of women of color by pointing how that white women have historically been complicit in their condition. I'll see my own way out.

6

[deleted] wrote

4

existential1 wrote

It's all-good. And I'd say the quoted bit is fair. There are apt times and places for all things...except archy.

4