Some idiot on another site said war isn’t political! Hahaha!
Looks like we got another case of Asians wanting be more "Western" or white. Just another story about a group of assholes being insecure of their race and culture.its just funny there's some sort of social movement against feminism and whatnot, when about a decade ago my cousin's big takeaway from South Korea was how effeminate the men could be.
Much that is political ends up not being a subject of public controversy.Some idiot on another site said war isn’t political! Hahaha!
"The progressive movement"? Sorry, which one?-Too linked to the progressive movement which is currently floundering in the West
The modern political one, Bernie Sanders, the squad, and etc."The progressive movement"? Sorry, which one?
So, a few Democratic politicians in the US, then. That's funny, because "the progressive movement" sounded a hell of a lot more broad than that.The modern political one, Bernie Sanders, the squad, and etc.
From my perspective, the women's march which was the apex of fourth-wave feminism which started around 2012 by Larua Bates was tied to progressive political leaders, and then it failed because of accusations of anti-Semitism of many key leaders. The problem is that without leadership, and mass decentralized movements can be cut apart, co-opted, and weaken. They should have either fought back better or accepted Jewish women into their leadership more broadly. They did neither.So, a few Democratic politicians in the US, then. That's funny, because "the progressive movement" sounded a hell of a lot more broad than that.
The truth is that "progressive" doesn't refer to one "movement". It's a broad descriptor for a thousand different political ideas, loosely on one side of a spectrum. There is no one "movement".
Heh. I hadn't considered that it is not political but instead political-economic.Behold the dumb quote
He loves to twists things around into some dumb narrative he has. Since when is war not political? Especially over resources? Also with the climate crisis, we might have wars over basic resources like water.Heh. I hadn't considered that it is not political but instead political-economic.
Anyway, war is bad!
*voluntarily engages in several*
Such a tragedy
This is... there's a lot to unpack here.From my perspective, the women's march which was the apex of fourth-wave feminism which started around 2012 by Larua Bates was tied to progressive political leaders, and then it failed because of accusations of anti-Semitism of many key leaders. The problem is that without leadership, and mass decentralized movements can be cut apart, co-opted, and weaken. They should have either fought back better or accepted Jewish women into their leadership more broadly. They did neither.
The waves of feminism, and why people keep fighting over them, explained
If you have no idea which wave of feminism we’re in right now, read this.www.vox.com
This brings me back to the progressive movement, had they simply done what third-wave feminism did which was accept the help of corporations, and companies they could have made it into a broader movement, but they didn't, and it got picked apart by the establishment media like CNN.
The third wave wanted more women in companies, wanted an equal rights amendment, and affirmative action which all need corporate America's approval. They weren't able to close the wage gap, but got more women in the workplace, and were close to getting ERA. It got more women in government as well, but they weren't all democrats.This is... there's a lot to unpack here.
Firstly, the 2012 women's march was not connected to any particular "wave". It was primarily a reaction to the Donald Trump campaign, and was primarily an American phenomenon. It was also so widely attended, and by so many different demographics, that it can hardly be said to represent any specific "movement" aside from women's rights in general and anti-Trump campaigners.
It certainly had nothing specifically tying it to the "fourth wave". And it had nothing really tying it to Laura Bates, either, who is a British writer, while the march was most notably attended in the USA.
Secondly, the third-wave does not owe its success to accepting the help of corporations. Corporations did not blaze a trail, they did not put their money where their mouth is. They did not even substantially change internal policies to address the concerns that feminists brought up. All they did-- all they continue to do regarding progressive politics-- is arrive on the scene really late in the day and make mealy-mouthed, empty statements of support.
They just follow whatever shiny thing the neolibs have glommed onto in their continued attempts to pretend to be functional human beings.All they did-- all they continue to do regarding progressive politics-- is arrive on the scene really late in the day and make mealy-mouthed, empty statements of support.
Waves do not represent unified interest blocs, they represent the environment within activist circles at particular times. The most obvious example is that the second wave was deeply, deeply divided between reformist and radical feminists who had fundamentally different goals. The idea that there was any consensus within the second wave about what they wanted or were working towards is something that has been applied retrospectively.The third wave wanted more women in companies, wanted an equal rights amendment, and affirmative action which all need corporate America's approval.
TERFs aren't 4th wave feminists. TERFS aren't 3rd wave feminists. TERFs are a subset of second wave feminists. Hope that helps explain the "infighting"-Too much in-fighting(TERFs vs LGBTQ feminists vs sex-positive feminism, etc.)
If you want to see this play out in practice, look at how Sheila Jeffreys and Judith Butler have ended up on opposite sides of the trans debate.TERFs aren't 4th wave feminists. TERFS aren't 3rd wave feminists. TERFs are a subset of second wave feminists. Hope that helps explain the "infighting"
Also this.There aren't successive "waves" these days.