One of the hardest hitting signs from yesterday's march

There is no suffering of white women. They are the most priviliged class in the world.

There is no suffering of white women. They are the most priviliged class in the world.

Class consciousness. Like that has ever happened in the nearly two centuries since Marx invented the concept.

In contrast, the stupidest sign:

Thats gotta be fake.

Surely the most simple minded feminist doesn't actually believe that razors are given free to men by the US government?

No, but the fact is that the suffering of minorities should not be ignored in favour of the much lesser suffering of white women, which the media pays a lot more attention to.

I still have absolutely no idea what these marches were meant to be about.

-_____-

Russian revolutions: 1905, 1917. German Revolution, Spanish Civil War, 30s general strike, Like pretty much everything that happened in early 20th century Europe has a big class component. The civil rights movement in the USA had a massive class element to it ghat has been airbrushed form history. Then you got it as recently as 1980s in this country. You have done pretty well if you are powerful enough to be describe as the enemy within by the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

Simplistically it means the world is complicated and there are a load of variables. Race, class, gender, sexuality etc are all things that determine your place in society. As to your question, I dunno, it probably depends on the situation they find themselves in and any other variables. I don't care about handing out who is the biggest victim price. I just want people to unite around getting rid of injustice. The reason I always bang on about class is that is gets disproportionately ignored and it would address the problem where left behind working class white men get pissed off by wealthy hollywood liberals who tell them they are the most privileged people on the planet. Another example is when feminists say white women voted in their race interests over their interest and a woman.This totally ignores that white women will be the wives of men who have been ****ed over by the american oligarchy. If you bring class into you can see why white working class women might vote for a pussy grabbing misogynist like Trump over a Hilary Clinton who stanhjds for the status quo of ******** on the rust belt.

What definitely is not a solution is to just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everything is hunky dory. Intersectionality is about trying to do something construct other than making anti-feminist memes on the internet and the left does best when it is a coalition of oppressed forces so it needs to be intersectional if it wants to succeed at anything.

Because, like, Trump said silly stuff about a decade ago which was creepcorderd!!!

The reason I always bang on about class is that is gets disproportionately ignored and it would address the problem where left behind working class white men get pissed off by wealthy hollywood liberals who tell them they are the most privileged people on the planet. Another example is when feminists say white women voted in their race interests over their interest and a woman.This totally ignores that white women will be the wives of men who have been ****ed over by the american oligarchy. If you bring class into you can see why white working class women might vote for a pussy grabbing misogynist like Trump over a Hilary Clinton who stanhjds for the status quo of ******** on the rust belt.

Just need to pull up on this, because it's a cultural populist myth in the US that's been going round for years, and its come out again with Trump. What is a bit more surprising is just how much commentators have taken it at face value this time round. Trump voters, on average, aren't poor working class whites, but rather comfortable middle class whites. It was a similar story when talking about the Occupy and Tea Party protests - right-wing commentators all opined that the former were all privileged rich kids and the latter were genuine working class Americans (liberal commentators no longer cared about Occupy once it became apparent that it wasn't going to become a Democratic satellite in the same way the Tea Party was a Republican one, and there are virtually no unapologetically left-wing major commentators in the US), so that was the message that got through; actual empirical data showed the average Tea Partier to be noticeably richer than the average Occupier.

Nor are they particularly "left behind". We're talking about people who regularly vote, at least in national elections. They're more likely to live in the more homogenous smaller states (i.e. they have disproportionate political weight in the Senate and Electoral College). Trump, essentially, was voted for by the people who normally vote Republican (he picked up a smaller portion of the electorate than Romney, even when you take into account non-voters).

Clearly I was responding to this:

The stark contrast to the yuppy selfie takers next to her can not be understated. That's how I imagine the face of bourgeois feminism.

It seems to me that feminism in the West glosses over society's racism, and just serves as a platform for white women to claim to be the victim, when the biggest victims of all are black women. Hell, even black men have it worse than white women, something feminism seems to ignore.

That's not surprising, given feminism's history. The feminists of old could not abide the fact that black men were given more of a say than white women. They argued that giving white women the vote would "help counter the black vote".

---

Thoughts?

Whilst it's idiotic it's hardly racist

No, but the fact is that the suffering of minorities should not be ignored in favour of the much lesser suffering of white women, which the media pays a lot more attention to.

Shag, marry or avoid: go!