How else can freedom be taken if not through violence? And if you can take freedom through violence, freedom can be taken back from you through violence. That all just sounds like a cycle of never-ending violence.
C’est la vie, non?
It’s not as though no slave, over several hundred years of slavery, ever thought of killing their master to free themselves. Very few even attempted it because they knew their violence would be met with even greater violence.
Right, the difference between organised violence that smashes a whole class of oppressors (good) vs individuals lashing out (also good, but not as much)
yeah, but would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?
Well in a civilized country you shouldn’t have to.
Only socialist countries count as “civilized,” then.
Quality post right here
… Sexist …
Blame Malcolm X, not the OP
I’m talking about the quote, not about OP. 6 downvotes of people who do not understand what the word means. The quote is sexist by any definition.
You really quoted Malcolm X?
"The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox.”
He wasn’t promoting conservatives, he was warning about both.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/malcolm-x-views-white-conservatives-evolution-7505e5
Is that quote supposed to be bad? This is a leftist community… I rather doubt many people on here like liberalism
Incredible how he thinks fighting for equality is a mans privilege. What flavor of equality we are talking about Malcolm? The brand where women should be oppressed and black men are somehow more equal then woman of any color?
This is in part the older, gender neutral usage of “man” meaning “human” and in part ignorance about woman issues. There were black women who felt left out both from black liberation movements and from feminism.
This is in part the older, gender neutral usage of “man” meaning “human” and in part ignorance about woman issues.
Sure, in good faith we need to take into account the historical background. Still, the quote “If you’re a man, you take it” in 2026, sounds more like something coming from the manosphere.
There were black women who felt left out both from black liberation movements and from feminism.
This is why feminism evovled to be intersectional.
Still, the quote “If you’re a man, you take it” in 2026, sounds more like something coming from the manosphere.
He didn’t say it in 2026. So what’s your point here? OP shouldn’t quote Malcolm X because his language is outdated?
This is why feminism evovled to be intersectional.
That’s a very generous reading of events. I would say, intersectional feminism evolved. White – or otherwise exclusive – feminism never ceased to exist. TERFs are still a thing. You can claim, this isn’t true feminism, but that’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Personnally, I do not reproduce quotes that haven’t age well. The OP, you and everyone do as you want. I am not quote- police or something.
I find it weird you mention the 'no true Scotsman" fallacy for TERFs. The acronym means Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
You said “feminism evovled to be intersectional”. I pointed out that this isn’t true because there is still anti-intersectional feminism out there and anticipated the argument that this isn’t true feminism. If you were never to make this argument, I guess I waisted some ink.
A few more words to clarify a couple of stuff.
The way I see things, the current wave of feminism is using the analytical tool of intersectionality which allows mistakes of the past to be addressed and not to be repeated.
Last time I checked, I also concluded that terfs are still a thing. For me, there is nothing radical in being a transphobe, so I think we should just call them that: transphobes. They can call themselves feminists, the word is out there for anyone to use. And this is why every time someone tells me they are a feminist I ask them and/or try to see how they see intersectionality so I know to who I am talking (if they are westerners, that is). And I hope by now it is clear, I don’t go into conversations defending the purity of movements.
And I hope by now it is clear, I don’t go into conversations defending the purity of movements.
As I already said, I just debunked this in case you might bring it up. If you never were to do so, fine. Can we please move on? I see how this might have sounded like a personal attack but please believe me that it wasn’t.
The way I see things, the current wave of feminism is using the analytical tool of intersectionality which allows mistakes of the past to be addressed and not to be repeated.
This isn’t too far from what I’m saying either but there are two points I’d like to make:
-
Feminism isn’t a monolith. There are intersectional branches of feminism but there are also transphobic, racist, imperialistic, Zionist, … branches. That’s why I brought up TERFs as an example for bigoted feminists.
-
Your framing makes it seem like earlier feminists realized their errs and opened up. Which might not be wrong but neither is the focus correct. It was black (and queer) feminists that fought their way into the movement. Or rather they had to create their own movement that later fused with feminism. My point is that it’s the achievement of intersectionalism, not of feminism. This might seem irrelevant and it doesn’t really contradict what you said but I think it’s an important aspect you didn’t mention.
-
