As if whole world of ideas & art and potential relationships based on shared experiences rather than culturally specific ones are a betrayal
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Some people might see it as a betrayal. My view is that assimilation can make people blind of their own group-based oppression.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
E.g. women of color who have learned to explain their career failures in terms of not-misogyny and not-racism.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Surely, what's important is whether it *is* misogyny and racism. Shouldn't be a political requirement to think it is or isn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Agreed. But there is pressure from the dominant, universalist majority to disregard such explanations!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
I think this is simplistic. I think a lot of the resistance to seeing racism & sexism etc comes from people seeing it everywhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @fronxer
The terms are losing power because of overuse & misuse. If everything is sexism and racism, nothing is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
“If everything i X, X is meaningless”—Agreed. However, racism & sexism exist as social phenomena distinct from analyses of cases
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Well, yes, but you can lose people's support if you aren't reasonable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
If I was going to be facetious, I would interpret “reasonable” as “acceptable within frames of reference of the majority”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Very Foudauldian. But yes, we could argue about what is and isn't reasonable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.