3 ms·

She was talking about her own experiences; and argues for a particular influence that the military has had on her. You might disagree with that argument, but th

She was talking about her own experiences; and argues for a particular influence that the military has had on her. You might disagree with that argument, but the effect that the military has on people with a different relationship to it is entirely irrelevant to the points being made. In response to some particular points of yours: >This is not feminism, it is feminism white washed for the ruling class. She is describing her own experiences and the influences on it. >Repeatedly the united States has removed what it viewed as leftist leaders and installed dictators in foreign countries, creating opressive regimes with poor human rights records. Subverting democracy and creating oppressive regimes with poor human rights is not inherently anti-feminist (although some of the regimes might be). This is also not relevent to the points being made in the article. >Furthermore, the united States military's strong internal structure of subservience to upper commanders and reliance on internal courts has led to a culture of sexual violence unpunished. Again, problems within the military are irrelevent. >What about the sexual abuse at guatonomo? I have seen no evidence that the sexual (or non-sexual) abuse at guatonomo were sexist in nature; and so entirely irrelevent to a discussion of feminism. (You could argue that the underlying reasons prisoners ended up at guatonomo is sexist). Also, as with your other points, this is irrelevent to the article. > And perhaps most importantly, what of the military's exploitation of young, poor people through shady enlistment tactics? Again, relevence to the article in particular, and feminism in general?

danharaj 10y ago
Cutting up someone's post into bitesize pieces not only obscures the coherence of their ideas, but makes it impossible to read your response. > Again, relevence to the article in particular, and feminism in general? > I have seen no evidence that the sexual (or non-sexual) abuse at guatonomo were sexist in nature; and so entirely irrelevent to a discussion of feminism. > Subverting democracy and creating oppressive regimes with poor human rights is not inherently anti-feminist (although some of the regimes might be). These positions demand that I ask you what you think feminism is. There is no one feminism. The feminism of white, able-bodied women in the United States is different from, say, Womanism (Black feminism) or Xicanisma (Mexican-American feminism). Indigenous feminism only shares a few common themes with western feminism: their roots reach into different histories of people living in different conditions. This is not surprising. Liberal feminism as it is allowed to exist in the mainstream discourse is neutered of any radical potential to challenge the hegemonic power structures of the world. However, for example, take anarchafeminism: In this feminism, all power structures that dominate all bodies, not just women's bodies are rejected. So in this conceptual framework, by definition sexual abuse of anyone is sexist: It is the use of sexual violence to create a relationship of domination between two people. As I said at the beginning of this reply, I have to ask: What is feminism to you? I feel like you are coming from the point of view that feminism is the identity politics of women in the United States. I think this narrows the scope of what feminism is to many people.

danharaj 10y ago

Cutting up someone's post into bitesize pieces not only obscures the coherence of their ideas, but makes it impossible to read your response. > Again, relevence to the article in particular, and feminism in general? > I have seen no evidence that the sexual (or non-sexual) abuse at guatonomo were sexist in nature; and so entirely irrelevent to a discussion of feminism. > Subverting democracy and creating oppressive regimes with poor human rights is not inherently anti-feminist (although some of the regimes might be). These positions demand that I ask you what you think feminism is. There is no one feminism. The feminism of white, able-bodied women in the United States is different from, say, Womanism (Black feminism) or Xicanisma (Mexican-American feminism). Indigenous feminism only shares a few common themes with western feminism: their roots reach into different histories of people living in different conditions. This is not surprising. Liberal feminism as it is allowed to exist in the mainstream discourse is neutered of any radical potential to challenge the hegemonic power structures of the world. However, for example, take anarchafeminism: In this feminism, all power structures that dominate all bodies, not just women's bodies are rejected. So in this conceptual framework, by definition sexual abuse of anyone is sexist: It is the use of sexual violence to create a relationship of domination between two people. As I said at the beginning of this reply, I have to ask: What is feminism to you? I feel like you are coming from the point of view that feminism is the identity politics of women in the United States. I think this narrows the scope of what feminism is to many people.