Oh, I absolutely agree with you. What I was trying to say there was that they’re not able to see the situation, as it is, through the lens of history. They don’t have the capacity for that kind of understanding. I’m not exactly saying that unequal treatment is good and fair.
However, after a long period of inequality, there is kind of a necessary middle point between inequality and equity where there has to be a balancing of the scales. We’ve all seen that sort of infographic/web comic where they’re showing the people looking over the fence, where inequality has the white boy standing on all the blocks and the others standing on one or none, and then under the “equality” header, they’re all standing on the same amount of blocks, and then under “equity,” the tall kid gets exactly enough o see over the fence, the short kid gets more, etc?
I mean, that is the main goal, right? Equity? There comes a time, especially after a long period of inequality, where those blocks have to get doled out. There has to be a time, after a long period of people not getting a seat at the table, where those disenfranchised people who have been historically kept out of the room get intentionally put in that room, given one of the seats at the table. And for all intents and purposes, there are only so many seats at any given table. See what I’m saying?
Now, these are all solutions under a capitalist system. Solutions to work within a system that is inherently flawed and inequitable. The answer is dismantling that system. But if we’re talking about jobs, positions of power, places at the capitalist table, etc., there is going to be a period of righting the wrongs, of giving those limited number of seats to people who belong to groups who have historically been kept out. But that’s talking about solutions within a flawed, unjust system. Because under capitalism, it is a hierarchy. And putting people in higher positions within it is the solution under capitalism—because you’re placing people still in a hierarchy, where others will be exploited at the hands of, now, the people who have suffered the exploitation the worst.
It makes no sense. You’re absolutely right.
So I think that’s what you are butting up against. It is that’s still inherently unfair because it requires overlooking the previously dominant groups, no matter that people didn’t choose to be born into the oppressor group, and they shouldn’t bear the pushback their ancestors catalyzed.
And rightly so, you should butt up against that because the system is built to be unfair. It thrives and literally operates on exploitation. So the solution you’re looking for is one that doesn’t involve hierarchy or capitalism. And I’m with you there. But we’re unfortunately talking about life under capitalism, so without demolishing that whole system in favor of a more equitable and just and healthy system, there will be inequality to right the imbalance. Should it be that way? No. But capitalism and hierarchy are forcing our hand here. But I’m with you, all the way.
Capitalism is not only a system of discrimination in itself, it is deeply interested in worsening existing issues to divide and conquer. Also, more controversies - more engagement - more profit! This artificially fuels the existing conflicts between people, and that’s one reason it should be dismantled.
I think with a multitude of factors that form what we call “privilege”, visible and invisible, known and unknown, we cannot adequately assess who is the most discriminated anymore. And when that time comes (mind you, after a century of women fighting for their rights and rightfully forcing into their seats at the table), the time comes to come together and genuinely care for the other, while not forgetting yourself.
The times of suffragettes are over. Men, women, nonbinary people all have unique circumstances and problems they face. And this is worth discussing together. I remember at one time, maybe just 5-10 years ago, it was more common to go and do exactly that, to band together under the wider antisexist banner, for men to care of women’s issues and for women to care for men’s. And it worked well, but was seemingly sabotaged - I assume - in the name of controversy, division and, ultimately - profit.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. What I was trying to say there was that they’re not able to see the situation, as it is, through the lens of history. They don’t have the capacity for that kind of understanding. I’m not exactly saying that unequal treatment is good and fair.
However, after a long period of inequality, there is kind of a necessary middle point between inequality and equity where there has to be a balancing of the scales. We’ve all seen that sort of infographic/web comic where they’re showing the people looking over the fence, where inequality has the white boy standing on all the blocks and the others standing on one or none, and then under the “equality” header, they’re all standing on the same amount of blocks, and then under “equity,” the tall kid gets exactly enough o see over the fence, the short kid gets more, etc?
I mean, that is the main goal, right? Equity? There comes a time, especially after a long period of inequality, where those blocks have to get doled out. There has to be a time, after a long period of people not getting a seat at the table, where those disenfranchised people who have been historically kept out of the room get intentionally put in that room, given one of the seats at the table. And for all intents and purposes, there are only so many seats at any given table. See what I’m saying?
Now, these are all solutions under a capitalist system. Solutions to work within a system that is inherently flawed and inequitable. The answer is dismantling that system. But if we’re talking about jobs, positions of power, places at the capitalist table, etc., there is going to be a period of righting the wrongs, of giving those limited number of seats to people who belong to groups who have historically been kept out. But that’s talking about solutions within a flawed, unjust system. Because under capitalism, it is a hierarchy. And putting people in higher positions within it is the solution under capitalism—because you’re placing people still in a hierarchy, where others will be exploited at the hands of, now, the people who have suffered the exploitation the worst.
It makes no sense. You’re absolutely right.
So I think that’s what you are butting up against. It is that’s still inherently unfair because it requires overlooking the previously dominant groups, no matter that people didn’t choose to be born into the oppressor group, and they shouldn’t bear the pushback their ancestors catalyzed.
And rightly so, you should butt up against that because the system is built to be unfair. It thrives and literally operates on exploitation. So the solution you’re looking for is one that doesn’t involve hierarchy or capitalism. And I’m with you there. But we’re unfortunately talking about life under capitalism, so without demolishing that whole system in favor of a more equitable and just and healthy system, there will be inequality to right the imbalance. Should it be that way? No. But capitalism and hierarchy are forcing our hand here. But I’m with you, all the way.
Capitalism is not only a system of discrimination in itself, it is deeply interested in worsening existing issues to divide and conquer. Also, more controversies - more engagement - more profit! This artificially fuels the existing conflicts between people, and that’s one reason it should be dismantled.
I think with a multitude of factors that form what we call “privilege”, visible and invisible, known and unknown, we cannot adequately assess who is the most discriminated anymore. And when that time comes (mind you, after a century of women fighting for their rights and rightfully forcing into their seats at the table), the time comes to come together and genuinely care for the other, while not forgetting yourself.
The times of suffragettes are over. Men, women, nonbinary people all have unique circumstances and problems they face. And this is worth discussing together. I remember at one time, maybe just 5-10 years ago, it was more common to go and do exactly that, to band together under the wider antisexist banner, for men to care of women’s issues and for women to care for men’s. And it worked well, but was seemingly sabotaged - I assume - in the name of controversy, division and, ultimately - profit.