Why is it a 'straw man' to claim women's domestic oppression an oppression and thus a political issue and from there to draw analogies with other political movements - especially with political issues that are seeking to traverse the boundary between being perceived as individual, personal problems (requiring individual solutions) and being perceived as structural issues, affecting groups and requiring piticsl action?
Why should that logical/linguistic/political move be disbarred in this instance.
Political struggle often -very often- moves forward by analogy: groups claim identity, political subjectivity and rights by claiming their RIGHT to a cognitive, political and social analogy.
There is nothing 'straw man' about my analogy.
I think you and I are simply disagreeing. I say that it is facile to call women 'martyrs' because it closes down the fact that there is a structural power imbalance -still- in the result ions between men and women.
I say that's net is a place where you see the individual voices -saying similar things -come together in a mosaic. Hence your ability to say 'martyrs' plural.
I say it is quite a thing for so many women's voices to be diversely represented.
I say it is a testament to the fact that this is a structural issue, requiring piticsl, not personal, solution.
We're not there yet. Have we asked for legislation around housework? No. We still don't see it as legitimately political. But who knows?
I say it reminds me of the mosaic I have seen on social media this year around the issue of police violence in America. I have found that anger-inducing and heartening.
One clear point if analogy is the intersection between a section of media and the wider, more powerful media.
Another point of analogy is the importance of singular voice becoming a group. Without losing it's singularity - the mosaic effect.
Another point of analogy is the sheer joy thst people experience as they create their own words to name their experience, and realise it is a shared language . And the power that brings.
I really don't think I can be any clearer as to my point.
Please don't patronise me by putting my thoughts in a - mislabelled - box and implying my intent is malicious.
I have accorded you the respect of engaging and accepting that I simply disagree with you. Frankly, I think you need to read a few more books. I hope you will respond with the same courtesy.