the difference is that the patriarchy exists and favors men. there is no systematic structure that puts Muslims above others, at the expense of others, in a way that is parallel to what the patriarchy does.
i get what you are saying, and maybe not too long ago i was professing quite similar feelings, but i encourage you to self interrogate how big of a difference that is. truly hope this is helpful.
So it is the level of “privilege” that does or does not allow the commission of -isms then. The better off the target is, the more acceptable discrimination is? That is also a very Western perspective. It would be ok to tell Muslims in the Middle East that terrorism is their responsibility because their country’s power structure does put Islam firmly above others?
This “some animals are more equal than others” stuff is moral equivocating. If something is wrong if done to a group that isn’t “in power”, then it is also wrong to do it to the group “in power”. This isn’t a zero sum game. We don’t have to weight the guilt by association for a black man when compared with a white man because systemic racism competes with systemic patriarchy. If you do think that the immutable characteristics a person is born with are the most important things about them, I would encourage you to self interrogate how messed up that is.
So it is the level of “privilege” that does or does not allow the commission of -isms then.
No. It is the presence of privelege at all in the first place that holds all of us responsible to address that privelage as a reality when protecting one another.
The better off the target is, the more acceptable discrimination is?
No, I reject that characterization of what intersectionalist feminism is altogether. Read further for more.
That is also a very Western perspective. It would be ok to tell Muslims in the Middle East that terrorism is their responsibility because their country’s power structure does put Islam firmly above others?
No, because you are equivocating two different meanings of “responsibility.” Feminism calls for a brother’s keeper responsibility, not direct culpability responsibility. It is absolutely valid for example, to expect Islamic leaders or followers to speak out against violence — and they absolutely do without you or I even asking. Much similarly, I ask Christians in the U.S. to recognize their position of power and to speak out against christofascist or transphobic violence, and that happens also (though perhaps less frequently than I would like). On the same level, I ask all men to take brother’s keeper responsibility and to hold one another accountable, recognizing their position of privilege while taking steps to protect others, especially when it comes to listening to women expressing their lived experiences rather than talking over them.
It’s a subtle difference but so incredibly important, so read it again if needed. Brothers keeper responsibility, not direct culpability.
the difference is that the patriarchy exists and favors men. there is no systematic structure that puts Muslims above others, at the expense of others, in a way that is parallel to what the patriarchy does.
i get what you are saying, and maybe not too long ago i was professing quite similar feelings, but i encourage you to self interrogate how big of a difference that is. truly hope this is helpful.
So it is the level of “privilege” that does or does not allow the commission of -isms then. The better off the target is, the more acceptable discrimination is? That is also a very Western perspective. It would be ok to tell Muslims in the Middle East that terrorism is their responsibility because their country’s power structure does put Islam firmly above others?
This “some animals are more equal than others” stuff is moral equivocating. If something is wrong if done to a group that isn’t “in power”, then it is also wrong to do it to the group “in power”. This isn’t a zero sum game. We don’t have to weight the guilt by association for a black man when compared with a white man because systemic racism competes with systemic patriarchy. If you do think that the immutable characteristics a person is born with are the most important things about them, I would encourage you to self interrogate how messed up that is.
No. It is the presence of privelege at all in the first place that holds all of us responsible to address that privelage as a reality when protecting one another.
No, I reject that characterization of what intersectionalist feminism is altogether. Read further for more.
No, because you are equivocating two different meanings of “responsibility.” Feminism calls for a brother’s keeper responsibility, not direct culpability responsibility. It is absolutely valid for example, to expect Islamic leaders or followers to speak out against violence — and they absolutely do without you or I even asking. Much similarly, I ask Christians in the U.S. to recognize their position of power and to speak out against christofascist or transphobic violence, and that happens also (though perhaps less frequently than I would like). On the same level, I ask all men to take brother’s keeper responsibility and to hold one another accountable, recognizing their position of privilege while taking steps to protect others, especially when it comes to listening to women expressing their lived experiences rather than talking over them.
It’s a subtle difference but so incredibly important, so read it again if needed. Brothers keeper responsibility, not direct culpability.