Shifting from mostly male CEOs to an equal share of male and women CEOs will not bring about equality.
Bringing that up in the middle of a meeting about women's issues is derailing. At best it's a counter-productive waste of time. But far more commonly it's going to make people feel like you don't respect their involvement in the movement. It may discourage some from further participating. Organizers cannot allow people who actively repel would-be parts of the movement a platform.
Building communism - you know, the thing about doing what's best for all of us as a community - is not going to be achieved by ignoring chunks of that community in favor of some guy who's just finished reading State And Rev. Nobody will believe you have their concerns at heart of you refuse to know what those concerns are.
It's also worth understanding that the structures that keep women oppressed are interlinked with the structures that promote white supremacy and capitalism. The amorphous mish mash of overlapping hierarchies (the kyriarchy) allows people in power to choose which hierarchy matters in which instance. So more than just needing to listen to people to build any coalition capable of action, you also need to understand how these different types of oppression function to know how people in power will respond to your attempts at a better world.
Edit: lol I missed the word capitalists so keep that in mind for the rest of this comment. I would guess that most of it still applies but they are clearly having a pro-class collaborationist space and that's pure garbage on their part.
There are a lot of discussions that could be interesting in the abstract but raising them can imply that you are devaluing the topic at hand. It sounds like the topic at hand was greater involvement of women and poc in revolutionary struggle (or maybe I'm reading too much into it), where an implicit devaluation would mean undermining their inclusion. As written, it even sounds like you were saying there were downsides to it, and only discussed those downsides, and like it or not that will come across as pure negativity about and criticism of the idea in general because humans are imprecise in their interpretations and communication - and hyper-aware of when they're personally potentially being criticized or excluded.
I don't know where their talk of meritocracy comes from, but I would say that you should always, always qualify a criticism in the context of support, assuming you do support the idea at hand, to help avoid this kind of misunderstanding. Not saying that would've prevented this (it takes two to tango!) or pass blame, but it might be helpful.
I just realized that I missed the word capitalists in your post, ha. I think a lot of what I said applies in left spaces generally but I've gotta hand it to you, it's good that you rejected their class collaborationism. And their class collaborationism is much worse than anything implicit in the topics you raised.
Agreed. If they are using the platform to talk about why diversity within the owner class is a goal, then they are not communists, If it is amounting to a general liberal line, then questioning it is necessary, though more clearly asking them to define if that's what they are implying first would be good
It sounds like maybe they got the idea that you were trying to do wrecker shit. I would say keep showing up to events and apply again, they'll either see that they were wrong, assume you've grown, or they'll be completely impenetrable and eventually you'll find a better org to move on to.
The question, as you've remembered it, has been used as a justification to to keep people oppressed. In the USA during chattel slavery times, it was a common argument for why slavery should continue and any free black person should be removed from the USA. If freed, they will do violence to us in retaliation for the violence done to them.
(I'm certain that Rush Limbaugh/Tucker Carlson/Bill O'reilly types have made similar styled arguments against feminists, immigrants, and Muslims.)
I don't disagree with the idea that changing the gender/color/sexuality of the capitalists would help with gaining equality for all, though.
Wait so did CEOs etc come up beforehand or did you bring that up apropos of nothing? Cause if it was then nah that's correct, if not then yeah that's cringe ngl, though no one seemingly explaining why or bringing it up till years later feels petty
deleted by creator
Shifting from mostly male CEOs to an equal share of male and women CEOs will not bring about equality.
Bringing that up in the middle of a meeting about women's issues is derailing. At best it's a counter-productive waste of time. But far more commonly it's going to make people feel like you don't respect their involvement in the movement. It may discourage some from further participating. Organizers cannot allow people who actively repel would-be parts of the movement a platform.
Building communism - you know, the thing about doing what's best for all of us as a community - is not going to be achieved by ignoring chunks of that community in favor of some guy who's just finished reading State And Rev. Nobody will believe you have their concerns at heart of you refuse to know what those concerns are.
It's also worth understanding that the structures that keep women oppressed are interlinked with the structures that promote white supremacy and capitalism. The amorphous mish mash of overlapping hierarchies (the kyriarchy) allows people in power to choose which hierarchy matters in which instance. So more than just needing to listen to people to build any coalition capable of action, you also need to understand how these different types of oppression function to know how people in power will respond to your attempts at a better world.
Edit: lol I missed the word capitalists so keep that in mind for the rest of this comment. I would guess that most of it still applies but they are clearly having a pro-class collaborationist space and that's pure garbage on their part.
There are a lot of discussions that could be interesting in the abstract but raising them can imply that you are devaluing the topic at hand. It sounds like the topic at hand was greater involvement of women and poc in revolutionary struggle (or maybe I'm reading too much into it), where an implicit devaluation would mean undermining their inclusion. As written, it even sounds like you were saying there were downsides to it, and only discussed those downsides, and like it or not that will come across as pure negativity about and criticism of the idea in general because humans are imprecise in their interpretations and communication - and hyper-aware of when they're personally potentially being criticized or excluded.
I don't know where their talk of meritocracy comes from, but I would say that you should always, always qualify a criticism in the context of support, assuming you do support the idea at hand, to help avoid this kind of misunderstanding. Not saying that would've prevented this (it takes two to tango!) or pass blame, but it might be helpful.
deleted by creator
I just realized that I missed the word capitalists in your post, ha. I think a lot of what I said applies in left spaces generally but I've gotta hand it to you, it's good that you rejected their class collaborationism. And their class collaborationism is much worse than anything implicit in the topics you raised.
deleted by creator
Agreed. If they are using the platform to talk about why diversity within the owner class is a goal, then they are not communists, If it is amounting to a general liberal line, then questioning it is necessary, though more clearly asking them to define if that's what they are implying first would be good
I don't know if the stanford prison experiment is exactly held up as a good or valid scientific experiment
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It sounds like maybe they got the idea that you were trying to do wrecker shit. I would say keep showing up to events and apply again, they'll either see that they were wrong, assume you've grown, or they'll be completely impenetrable and eventually you'll find a better org to move on to.
deleted by creator
Going to second ssjmarx's comment.
The question, as you've remembered it, has been used as a justification to to keep people oppressed. In the USA during chattel slavery times, it was a common argument for why slavery should continue and any free black person should be removed from the USA. If freed, they will do violence to us in retaliation for the violence done to them.
(I'm certain that Rush Limbaugh/Tucker Carlson/Bill O'reilly types have made similar styled arguments against feminists, immigrants, and Muslims.)
I don't disagree with the idea that changing the gender/color/sexuality of the capitalists would help with gaining equality for all, though.
Wait so did CEOs etc come up beforehand or did you bring that up apropos of nothing? Cause if it was then nah that's correct, if not then yeah that's cringe ngl, though no one seemingly explaining why or bringing it up till years later feels petty