Punching Terfs

Perhaps it's the fact that many convicts were political prisoners from Ireland or the Chartist movement ...

What is Australia's attitude to welfare state? I am not really informed about that, I am afraid.

I imagine being kicked out and forced to live there might have given people a somewhat different attitude than the "promised land" attitude of the immigrants to America.

Very interesting thread. Especially about the collective American consciousness.

No vestal we had that type of immigrant in Australia. Place is full of churches. Perhaps it's the fact that many convicts were political prisoners from Ireland or the Chartist movement ...

I wonder how much it's to do with the historical absence of a labour party and the consequent lack of class consciousness in public debate.

I think the fact that many of the Europeans that emigrated to America had a religion that told them their material wealth was a sign of god's approval might have something to do with it. It means rich people are automatically also better, perhaps even holy.

Whereas in the traditional Catholic religion, choosing poverty is considered virtuous (think nuns and monks) and giving to the poor is something that makes you a better person, not the being rich as such.
Now, of course the allegedly Christian conservative parties want less of a welfare state than the political left, but I think the general mentality might have something to do with it.

I've heard it used to explain why blue collar workers will vote for Trump, for example - they genuinely think he's "one of them", that he's what they could be with a mixture of hard graft and good luck. The idea that he's a member of the class that exists in virtue of systematically screwing them just doesn't come across their radar.

Yes, that's why, after some consideration, I used the word "silly", not "stupid". Because they are that stupid, in the US, as they voted for Trump.
That's normal, garden variety stupidity, which is just lack of consciousness. But I doubt they'd be stupid enough to insist that they actually are millionaires. They just claim they could become ones. Which is true; just very, very unlikely.
The whole American system is based on telling people everyone can become a millionaire. That's the "American Dream", and it has never been updated. (It might have been true when every white man could get his share of land stolen from the Native Americans. But those times are long gone.)

Yes mostly I've read before how the rich are venerated in America in a way that is inconceivable in other Western countries. I wonder how much it's to do with the historical absence of a labour party and the consequent lack of class consciousness in public debate.

No worker has ever managed to unionize and fight for his rights by throwing a hissy fit every time someone calls him "comrade", insisting that he prefers "sir" because he identifies as capitalist. And fortunately, as of now, working class people aren't that silly.

That's an interesting line, because I've heard it suggested that one of the reasons socialism has never gained any real traction in the USA is because poor people in the US rarely see themselves as poor because of systematic, structural disadvantages; instead they think of themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." I've heard it used to explain why blue collar workers will vote for Trump, for example - they genuinely think he's "one of them", that he's what they could be with a mixture of hard graft and good luck. The idea that he's a member of the class that exists in virtue of systematically screwing them just doesn't come across their radar.

(Note that when the Americans do get their act together and unionize they can be very powerful - New York hotel workers are one of the few groups of hotel workers in the world actually paid decently, for instance. But these are rare exceptions to the general rule.)

BTW, I agree Assigned, I prefer (old fashioned JS Mill/ John Rawls) type liberalism (as opposed to Hobbesian race-to-the-bottom neo liberalism) to socialism - equality of opportunity. But it has to be genuine opportunity, which levels the playing field in respect of both biology (women needing time out to bear and rear children) and history (where a group are still playing catchup after historical oppression, as the black community in America still are).

Finally got access to the thread now. My god! "Words are violence!" except when you use the word "TERF" as it is a neutral descriptor. The mind boggles.

Although i've never studied patterns in patriarchal control, i can see that it may be an "inevitable readjustment" by the patriarchy. Bizarre though, if the system works by such almost biological patterns.

The parasitic angle is definitely male entitlement and manipulation though.

Has the twitter thread in the OP been taken down?

No, the Terf-hater who posted the original tweet will have blocked Helen Lewis or possibly deleted his tweet entirely so the photo is not visible, but the rest of the thread is still there.

There's an interesting article on the fast successes of genderism, here:

4thwavenow.com/2017/03/23/the-tortoise-the-hare-gay-rights-v-gender-identity-in-us-law/

Personally, my theory is that no mass movement was needed because it is just patriarchy in action. It is not an oppressed group fighting the status quo, but just patriarchy reasserting itself, a backlash of sorts.

Though the parasite metaphor also seems plausible ... soon after the T was added to LGB, it all became about the T, and alleged feminists mainly concern themselves with fighting for the rights of males.

(Also, the way women I thought I knew turned completely against me, spewing death threats, when I said something gender-critical, reminded me of depictions of demonic possession and mind-control)

Absolutely vestal and it's firgotten in these soft modern times that early gains for women were only achieved by expending their blood.

That's partly why it's frightening and confusing to see trans gains without any mass movement, just as a parasite that latches on to others and forces them to change their will through negativity and fear of pariah status.

It's all navel gazing nonsense that cripples solidarity actions

Agreed.
Though I think it harms feminism more than Marxism.

There's lots and lots of women who try to identify out of womanhood, and while they might still have the common sense left to want to fight for their right to have abortions, they'll hinder the movement by throwing a tantrum every time someone refers to them as woman.

No worker has ever managed to unionize and fight for his rights by throwing a hissy fit every time someone calls him "comrade", insisting that he prefers "sir" because he identifies as capitalist. And fortunately, as of now, working class people aren't that silly.

Has the twitter thread in the OP been taken down?

And i do see economic oppression as the heart of women's problems in achieving equality. If women around the world had the freedom and equality to be economically independent, then their sex based oppression would be mitigated. Obviously women won't benefit from flat out equality but need measures that take into account sex based needs of reproduction.

Also the problem with the trans angle is its bullshit when related to "cis" women. Yes we don't struggle with gender identity but many of us will struggle with anorexia or other mental health issues. Yes we don't get murdered for being trans but we do get murdered for being female, sometimes before birth.
Periods and abortion, birth injuries and FGM, menopause and rape are not a privilege. And we can't identify out if those things.
It really makes me angry.

I don't really like the concept of privilege.

I think that's mostly a terminology question. If you agree that people are oppressed on a class basis, then it doesn't matter whether you call profiting from/not being subjected that oppression "privilege" or call it something else.

I see no relation between Marxism and identity politics. Identity politics completely takes attention away from economic oppression, by demonising parts of the vanguard just because of who they were born as.
It may use the same terminology but it is absolutely disinterested in liberating marginalised groups from their poverty and disenfranchisement. Hence it will never materially change an oppressed group's conditions.
It's all navel gazing nonsense that cripples solidarity actions which are at the heart of Marxism, the internationalist ideal and the "brotherhood of man".

I really resent having to use my personal history to support a point, but it appears to be what is to be done these day

Don't do it, then. It was important to talk about personal experience in the early days of feminism, but at the moment, we have statistics you can refer to when talking class analysis. (We will probably have to talk about personal experience again when statistics become confused by genderism, and no one knows anymore what sex any person in a given statistic is.)

Hmmm. I don't really like the concept of privilege. I can get oppression but for all the reasons you say, privilege isn't useful for me because there are so many reasons someone can struggle.
I prefer a class analysis approach that's broad brush.

If you are white/cis/het, it does not make you privileged.

Well, I agree about the "cis", which is plain nonsense, but being white does give you privilege in the US.

Privilege in that context doesn't mean that you are automatically rich and successful, it means that it is relatively easier for you to become rich and successful, and more likely to be born into a rich family.

Even the poorest of poor men don't have to worry about being raped if they walk home alone at night, and certainly don't have to worry about it when they date women.
That is what is meant by privilege.

If a white man in the US rapes a white woman, he gets away with it.
If a black man in the US rapes a black woman, he gets away with it.
If a black man in the US rapes a white woman, then there's a chance he might not get away with it.
(Simplified. How rich and famous everyone is also plays a role)

Assigned - yes some people who are white suffer enormous disadvantages and in some cases (class, income, education) structural disadvantages, and I'm sorry you were one of them.

But my understanding of class analysis is not that it involves lumping everyone into being privileged, but that it says things about the averages for the various classes. E.g. all other things being equal, on average a white working class male will earn less than his white middle class counterpart, but will still be doing better on average than a white working class woman, who, again on average, will be doing better than a black working class woman.

Of course there will be exceptions - but if we only focus on the exceptions and use them to engage in whataboutery every time someone tries to talk about class discrimination, or sexism, or racism, then we lose the ability to talk about discrimination at all in any meaningful sense. (Which of course is the end result of late 20th century/early 21st century neo-liberal individualism - we become this floating collection of disparate individuals bleating about our own individual rights and needs, without any language left to connect the dots and see the underlying patterns).