This International Women’s Day comes five months after the revelations about Harvey Weinstein’s long campaign of misogynist punishments of women first broke, and with them more things broke. Excuses broke. Silence was broken. The respectable appearance of a lot of institutions broke. You could say a dam broke, and a wall of women’s stories came spilling forth – which has happened before, but never the way that this round has.
Just one of the fundamental truths to be found in this excellent article!
Solnit’s’ empirical fantasy of how social change occurs is appallingly ignorant.
She’s not describing incrementalism, she’s describing failure. Incrementalism moves things forward if it’s working, but largely–empirically–incrementalism is the process by which more radical reform or outright revolutionary change is thwarted. Incrementalism is the crumb-tossing mechanics of retaining power in old hands.
Which she’s about to find out when it turns out that the only class to benefit ultimately from the #metoo campaign is–wait for it!–professional class white women. What a coincidence for Becky.
It’s not that cut-and-dried. The incrementalism Solnit is describing can work in one aspect of social relations without comprehensive transformation of all aspects.
Through her lens, the social conversation around wealth and control of the economy is shifting in similar ways to the changes she references. Incrementalism (such as the Sanders campaign) - or failure, as you put it - can be seen as laying the groundwork for more fundamental change in the political economy.
And your intentional use of the diminutive “Becky” outs you on the side of patriarchal social institutions. Stick to the analysis and leave the privileged rudeness aside.
I. Can’t. Stand. Solnit.
Having said that, you’re right to call it out. This is a fine where I’ll happily pay the ticket.
So why, Drone 1066: Can’t. You. Stand. Solnit?
Men and women see things from different perspectives; we need to get this hammered out. (Not to mention all the intermediate levels between Masculinity and Femininity.) On the ground floor of existence we are gendered differently, but on the upper reaches of Law and Science it makes no difference and we all deserve/demand the same treatment.
Is that so hard?
Yes. I’ve always said that it doesn’t matter what the rules are, as long as they’re the same for everybody.
My impression of her is that she’s a condescending, intellectually dishonest, and hypocritical polemicist. But I also think she is a salient example of why modern day feminism has fallen into toxic disrepute and why people are distancing themselves from the label in droves. So even if I find her personally disagreeable, I think her contributions may prove useful in the long run.
Weinsteins mug just oozes F U I’m above the law. With a little makeup he passes for Curly. Slap him around good Moe.
Yes. Just like like that bully and blowhard currently occupying the office once held by Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, without his money and power, he couldn’t get laid in a women’s penitentiary.
“Without his money and power…” This is probably the saddest fact about modern love. Whatever happened to young people or even older people being attracted to each other simply by each other’s looks followed by each other’s character? Is the love that may grow from such not far more valuable …More likely to bring happiness?
Our culture has completely different rules for poor and powerless vs rich and powerful. Goldman stole billions during the last crash and our government gave them billions more. Just gave it to them. That is what people who want an egalitarian society need to focus on. Unions treat all as equal. Maybe more unions would speed the goals of feminism like equal pay as they are also the goals of unions. Harvey Weinstein is one person. Bringing him to justice is a symbol that can galvanize people but the real struggle must be broadened to illustrate the economic power exploitation at work there is not different from the meat packing company that forces illegals to work overtime for nothing and steals their social security deposits just because they can get away with it. Because they are rich and the workers poor. Trying to differentiate feminism as a separate struggle untouched by class is why Diversity politics brings defeat. Look to the cause not the symbol. Both are important but increasing the minimum wage, doubling social security with a minimum benefit equal to the minimum wage, and making the workplace healthy and safe unites. Otherwise it’s easy to pick off men who can’t relate to the Harvey Weinstein problem and you end up with kids who have continual post traumatic stress syndrome because the armed guards and counter terrorism drills get priority over everything. We need to unite to force a progressive agenda and enter a second FDR era. Hard to understand what I’m saying but you get the jist as a ramble…
It’s not hard at all to understand what you’re saying. In fact, it’s spot-on.
Curly was much more simpatico that the odious Weinstein. More than from Moe’s slaps, Harvey might benefit from a tussle with Schwarzeneggar in his prime.
Are you suggesting they would grope each other if left alone together?
So sorry for your limited view. It has hit the wallets.
You never know!
It is still there,
and often the character attracts before the looks, or the looks are irrelevant. My husband , very funny looking when i first met him in strange garb from a foreign country. My husband, disabled and disfigured now, still very appealing. Wheelchair folks find love. It is out there. Keep looking.