We need a feminism that fights not for more women CEOs but for things like a shorter work week, public child care, and other things that will help the majority of people.
Liberal feminism (the girlboss, white variety) can get in the bin. It doesn’t lift up marginalized women, it often excludes trans and gender diverse people. It’s usually racist and classist. It barely registers as ‘feminist’ in my view.
Enjoying your read again here. This is not a rejection of feminism, but a push for it to be bigger, bolder, and more inclusive. Too often, we get stuck in movements that feel like they’re trading one ruling class for another, rather than dismantling the systems that keep all of us fighting over scraps. I often think that the meaning of the movement frequently gets lost in the very political necessities of it.
It reminds me of how “divide and conquer” works in every arena, whether it’s race, gender, or class; manufacturing false competition so the same small group keeps the real power. That’s why I’m drawn to the kind of feminism you describe: one that sees our struggles as interconnected, that recognizes liberation isn’t a zero-sum game, and that refuses to confuse access to the C-suite with true equality.
I also can’t help but think about the role AI could play in realizing your vision, particularly when it comes to shorter workweeks and more free time. The technology is here to automate much of the drudgery, but the question is whether we have the educational and philosophical foundation to use it for liberation rather than exploitation. Without that cultural and structural shift, we risk building faster-running treadmills rather than freeing people from them.
And while I don’t align with conservatism as it’s often expressed today, I do want to respond to the spirit of your closing question: Why should men be feminists? Because the movement you’re describing, one that targets systems, not just figureheads, offers a vision where everyone’s dignity, opportunity, and quality of life can grow together. That’s a future worth investing in, no matter your political starting point.
Liberal feminism (the girlboss, white variety) can get in the bin. It doesn’t lift up marginalized women, it often excludes trans and gender diverse people. It’s usually racist and classist. It barely registers as ‘feminist’ in my view.
Enjoying your read again here. This is not a rejection of feminism, but a push for it to be bigger, bolder, and more inclusive. Too often, we get stuck in movements that feel like they’re trading one ruling class for another, rather than dismantling the systems that keep all of us fighting over scraps. I often think that the meaning of the movement frequently gets lost in the very political necessities of it.
It reminds me of how “divide and conquer” works in every arena, whether it’s race, gender, or class; manufacturing false competition so the same small group keeps the real power. That’s why I’m drawn to the kind of feminism you describe: one that sees our struggles as interconnected, that recognizes liberation isn’t a zero-sum game, and that refuses to confuse access to the C-suite with true equality.
I also can’t help but think about the role AI could play in realizing your vision, particularly when it comes to shorter workweeks and more free time. The technology is here to automate much of the drudgery, but the question is whether we have the educational and philosophical foundation to use it for liberation rather than exploitation. Without that cultural and structural shift, we risk building faster-running treadmills rather than freeing people from them.
And while I don’t align with conservatism as it’s often expressed today, I do want to respond to the spirit of your closing question: Why should men be feminists? Because the movement you’re describing, one that targets systems, not just figureheads, offers a vision where everyone’s dignity, opportunity, and quality of life can grow together. That’s a future worth investing in, no matter your political starting point.