Question ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

I another thread, someone opined:

Keeping women poor while denying them equal rights is not much different than keeping women poor while advocating for their {ETA: EQUAL} rights.

Agree? Disagree? Care to Discuss?

I suspect I know the majority opinion here; but thought I'd ask.

Thanks

[uppityperson]

1. How is keeping someone poor advocating for their rights?

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. They were talking about advocating for their EQUAL rights ...

I will go back and edit the question for clarity.

[uppityperson]

6. Keeping someone poor is not advocating for equal rights.

I guess your question, that quote, is about economic and social rights, how they interact or if they are separate and equal things.

Keeping women poor while denying them equal rights is not much different than keeping women poor while advocating for their {ETA: EQUAL} rights.

Keeping anyone poor is not advocating for equal rights, even if those equal rights are for other things like voting, or, not sure what. So i do not understand the second part of that quote because economics and sociological rights are so inter-twined.

Women can only have economic parity when societal equal rights are addressed and societal equal rights need economic parity to work also.

As an example of how they interact...
My first professional job (mid 70's) I was asked when I planned to marry and (implied) have babies and (again implied) become a homemaker rather than a professional because they weren't sure if they should risk all the time and money to fully orient and train me in the position if I were just going to go get knocked up. Raises were higher for the few men in my position because "they needed to support a family" and us wommin were just playing around.

One of the highest paying and best benefits jobs I have had was being a janitor, contracting with a company, that was ok hiring whoever could do the job. This was mid way between Then and Now.

So, Keeping women poor while denying them equal rights (seems like saying the same thing) is not much different than keeping women poor while advocating for their {ETA: EQUAL} rights (which I have no clue what that means).

I am not sure if I am clear here, please let me know and I'll try again.

[Dont call me Shirley]

2. Did they mean actively taking steps to ensure women stay poor?

In that case the two options would not seem much different, but advocating for women's rights option would be better. Because giving women (and men as well) the ability to see that they have given rights as an inhabitant if this earth, helps them become able to stand up and advocate for their own rights. Women who have no rights are stuck in a traumatic paralysis state of being where making choices and motivation are lost in the trauma of poverty.

[F4lconF16]

3. Disagree as it was intended, agree in another sense

As it was stated (and I saw the post) I think that it was meant not to promote the idea that the two issues are entangled, but to promote them as equal and separate issues, which I disagree with.

There is also a huge difference between keeping social rights away from someone and keeping economic comfort away from someone. Social oppression demonizes people; it "otherizes" them and separates them from normal society. It is harmful in an entirely different manner, often much more insidious and raw. The two should not be equated, imo.

That said, I do believe that economic change is necessary to solve social issues and vice versa. THe major socialist movements we have had so far have failed when they could not integrate the two. Capitalism is dependent on the oppression and denigration of entire peoples, and in solving social issues, we strike a blow to that system. By the same token, movements for equality will not succeed without an upheaval of the economic system. As MLK began to realize later in life (and what a few of the socialist movements attempted to fix) is that oppression is driven by economics. Slavery, Jim Crow, the 1000s of years of oppression of women, etc., are all results of an ideology that values profit and growth above human life.

I don't know if I've said this very well, and it's much more complex than what I've said here, but I think it's a decent summary of how I feel about this.

Edit: wow, I read that post totally wrong. I thought it said

"Keeping women (economically well off--I forget what I read it as) while denying them equal rights is not much different than keeping women poor while advocating for their rights.

As it stands, that's just idiotic.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. No ...

I understand what you are saying.

I think this is variation on the "economic equality will moot racial inequality" argument ... which is read by PoC: if you're rich enough, you wouldn't care that you are treated as the other ... Or the corollary, if you are poor enough, you don't care about the extra indignity of being treated unequally.

[F4lconF16]

8. Clarification...

When you say, "I think this is variation on...", by "this" do you mean my post or the quote you posted?

Otherwise I think you're absolutely right. There's an idea held by people of privilege that being one of the "others" doesn't matter as much as how much you have in your pocket, and it's 100% wrong.

Btw I edited my earlier post if that helps.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. I'm speaking of the quote ...

There's an idea held by people of privilege that being one of the "others" doesn't matter as much as how much you have in your pocket, and it's 100% wrong.

Exactly!

If you're rich (or poor) enough, your dignity doesn't matter.

[BainsBane]

7. I suspect that is part of an argument to dismiss women's issues

Just as they dismiss everything that isn't about them. Am I right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. That is my take away ...

If you are rich enough, it won't matter that you can't marry whom you love, or can't get the job or loan for which you are qualified, or can't live where your means afford you, or that you suffer the other indignities Black folks, LGBT folks, and women face because of their flavor ... you're rich! Why complain?

Or, if you are poor enough, it won't matter that you can't marry whom you love, or can't get the job or loan for which you are qualified, or can't live where your means afford you, or that you suffer the other indignities Black folks, LGBT folks, and women face because of their flavor ... you're poor, you have more pressing things to worry about!

[BainsBane]

11. The thing is women and people of color

are the majority of the poor in this country, so to pretend those issues aren't related doesn't correspond to reality. However, poverty is not the sole problem, as we well know.

I did see someone disparagingly say "rich people like gay marriage," as though basic civil rights for a significant part of the country played into the hands of the 1 percent. I found it a rather ugly comment. That is the sort of thing you have observed. No amount of money can make someone white, male, or straight--subject positions that all carry certain advantages. That they do carry privilege is a good part of the reason why being white and male makes one far less likely to be poor. How can so-called liberals not understand that?

In full disclosure, I have not seen the comment in question, nor do I plan to hunt it down. What I have seen a considerable amount of is the attitude you describe.

[seabeyond]

14. so, regardless, just do not talk womens issues. hey, i saw a thread on protest of 50 shades.

first post....

silly women, they need to find something important to protest, or some such.

the first sentence in the article was the discussion of the protest being violence and abuse against women.

and he said, these people were being silly, wasting time, and needed to find something more productive.

whether one agrees 50 shade advocates and normalizes abuse and violence against women or not..... is one thing. but, this group did. and that is what they were protesting and well stated.

and the man states protesting violence against women is a waste of time.

do people hear themselves when they throw out words?

[ismnotwasm]

12. There are a couple of logic fails in there

Mainly who/what is keeping women poor? Who/what is denying them equal rights? And are these same powers, who keep women poor and deny them equal rights also advocating for equal rights for women?--that's the only way it makes any sense whatsoever. Or rather the nonsense is clearer.

[seabeyond]

13. there is a very fundamental difference denyin rights and advocating for rights, and the woman stays

poor if she is being "kept" there, regardless.

fighting for rights at least give the opportunity of no longer "kept poor".

i am going to agree with the others. probably one of the handful that readily demand womens issues dismissed, derailing a discussion. i can give you a name who it sounds like.

[nomorenomore08]

15. Equal rights on paper is nice, but without economic justice it doesn't mean a whole lot.

Or at least, doesn't mean as much as it would otherwise.

Though sea is also correct, that denying women equal legal rights helps to keep them poor.