US feminism is mostly centering on the issues of white, middle-class women, failing to fully integrate the needs of women of color, marginalized, or lower-income women. This lack of a unified approach leads to fragmented advocacy and fragmented outcomes, rather than a broad movement.
Also 53% of white women vote for trump compared to 7% of black women who voted for trump. This showed that they gave more priority to racial identify over collective welfare of all women in usa .
White feminist often ignore or won’t acknowledge that in usa —specifically land ownership and early capital accumulation were built upon the exploitation of Native American and African people.
The systematic removal of Native Americans from their land provided massive amounts of property that was subsequently passed down through generations of white families, serving as a primary source of generational wealth which black women or native American women doesn’t have.
The wealth generated by the labor of enslaved African people in agriculture and other industries directly enriched white slaveholders and, by extension, their present generation
.
Jim crows law curbed wealth generation for black women compared to white women
Wealth disparity between Black and white women in the USA is severe, with white households holding nearly 10 times the median net worth of Black households, or approximately 15 cents for every dollar. Black women face lower income, less intergenerational wealth, lower homeownership rates, and higher debt, often keeping them in lower-wage service jobs without benefits.
white feminists often ignore these issues
Best example would be :-1)DEI
Despite DEI mostly benefitted white women , most of the white feminist organisation ignored whether black women benefitted or not .they doesn’t cared about native American or black women .
They often fail to view things from racial angle by focusing just on gender angle
2)Most of the educational scholarships are benefitted by white women over native American ,black women
Unlike Scandinavian countries where feminists became inclusive that they heavily prioritised welfare and empowerment of minority women belonging to Sami tribe community
Whereas in United States , everything is just in words not in action.
US feminism is mostly centering on the issues of white, middle-class women, failing to fully integrate the needs of women of color, marginalized, or lower-income women.
Literally the only feminism I’ve heard about for the past 10 years is intersectional feminism.
Also 53% of white women vote for trump compared to 7% of black women who voted for trump. This showed that they gave more priority to racial identify over collective welfare of all women in usa .
Very much a just-so story. Imo, a far more reasonable interpretation breaks voting patterns along tribal identity, while most women voting care about more things than the very amorphous “collective welfare of all women”. Interesting to note that 38% of latina voters voted for Trump, a statistic strangely absent from your argument…
White feminist often ignore or won’t acknowledge that in usa —specifically land ownership and early capital accumulation were built upon the exploitation of Native American and African people.
I have never met a single self-identifying feminist who would not agree with this to some extent.
The wealth generated by the labor of enslaved African people in agriculture and other industries directly enriched white slaveholders and, by extension, their present generation .
I think Adam Smith would have a lot to say about this. Specifically, he would probably point out that the slave states really had an awfully small economy compared to the free states, and that most of the wealth generation which occurred in the US occurred due to productivity gains driven by technological innovations which were most aggressively exploited in the north. In the long run, few people could claim to have really benefitted noticeably from american slavery - it was just a shitty thing to do for no reason.
Despite DEI mostly benefitted white women
I mean, from the pro-DEI arguments I keep hearing on lemmy, DEI seems to mostly involve removing names from resumes before they are rejected by AI or something. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this critique had merit - most people who benefit from adding footholds inside the system are people who know how to work the system.
2)Most of the educational scholarships are benefitted by white women over native American ,black women
I really don’t have anything to say to this, because it feels like you kind of just shut down in the middle of a rant. Are you okay? Did you have a stroke?
I think Adam Smith would have a lot to say about this. Specifically, he would probably point out that the slave states really had an awfully small economy compared to the free states, and that most of the wealth generation which occurred in the US occurred due to productivity gains driven by technological innovations which were most aggressively exploited in the north. In the long run, few people could claim to have really benefitted noticeably from american slavery - it was just a shitty thing to do for no reason.
Some historians appear to agree with additional support.
During the 18th century, the slave economy was significant in the expansion of industry & commerce, but its value declined & was no longer needed by the 19th century.
Slave-intensive sugar production that dominated the 18th century became less important in the 19th century as shipment of cotton products to international markets grew in significance.
Unlike sugar, cotton had less need for slaves, and early cotton growers used slaves primarily because they were already slave-owners.
Insurgent scholars known as New Historians of Capitalism argue that slavery, specifically slave-grown cotton, was critical for the rise of the U.S. economy in the 19th century. In contrast, I argued that although industrial capitalism needed cheap cotton, cheap cotton did not need slavery. Unlike sugar, cotton required no large investments of fixed capital and could be cultivated efficiently at any scale, in locations that would have been settled by free farmers in the absence of slavery. Early mainland cotton growers deployed slave labour not because of its productivity or aptness for the new crop, but because they were already slave owners, searching for profitable alternatives to tobacco, indigo, and other declining crops. Slavery was, in effect, a ‘pre-existing condition’ for the 19th-century American South.
Slavery restrained economic development of the south, causing it to underperform economically: while it unevenly concentrated the lesser wealth produced there, the lesser wealth produced there benefitted the rest of the economy less than it could have.
Free states didn’t benefit from the less wealth concentrated elsewhere.
To be sure, U.S. cotton did indeed rise ‘on the backs of slaves’, and no cliometric counterfactual can gainsay this brute fact of history. But it is doubtful that this brutal system served the long-run interests of textile producers in Lancashire and New England, as many of them recognized at the time. As argued here, the slave South underperformed as a world cotton supplier, for three distinct though related reasons: in 1807 the region closed the African slave trade, yet failed to recruit free migrants, making labour supply inelastic; slave owners neglected transportation infrastructure, leaving large sections of potential cotton land on the margins of commercial agriculture; and because of the fixed-cost character of slavery, even large plantations aimed at self-sufficiency in foodstuffs, limiting the region’s overall degree of market specialization. The best evidence that slavery was not essential for cotton supply is demonstrated by what happened when slavery ended. After war and emancipation, merchants and railroads flooded into the southeast, enticing previously isolated farm areas into the cotton economy. Production in plantation areas gradually recovered, but the biggest source of new cotton came from white farmers in the Piedmont. When the dust settled in the 1880s, India, Egypt, and slave-using Brazil had retreated from world markets, and the price of cotton in Liverpool returned to its antebellum level. See Figure 2.
Specifically, he would probably point out that the slave states really had an awfully small economy compared to the free states,
Both things can be true though. The money from black slaves flowed into the pockets of white slaveowners AND it was economically a very dumb move.
If I steal a thousand bucks, and lose nine hundred and fifty while running away, I haven’t benefited much, but that doesn’t change the damage inflicted.
My point is that saying I am rich because my grandfather snatched your grandmonther’s purse 70 years ago isn’t true if that purse had $0.70 and an empty snickers wrapper in it. Yes, the damage to the other is real, but not the supposed benefits afterward.
it’s a convoluted rant blaming white women for trumps win, or something. because if only they were the right kind of feminist they’d have seen the light! or something
I particularly enjoyed the random injection of NA land issues, as if that’s somehow the fault of white middle-class feminism?
Wild stuff. But your typical leftist lemmy rant that is completely out of touch and incoherent and blames other people for being ignorant fools for not being their particular flavor of leftism. Because if only everyone believed what they did, we’d live in a socialist utopia where injustice would not exist and butterflies would fly out of everyone’s assholes when they farted.
Adam smith point of view won’t work here cause black people even after abolishment of slavery were not allowed to participate in economy in efficient way . Productivity of economy benefited only white people for wealth generation …
In case black people if became successful,they were torn downed to the ground
Best example would be what happened to black wall street and how it got destroyed during Tulsa massacre
Your comment completely completely proves what white feminism is
That would be really weird, considering I don’t even really consider myself to be a feminist. Sure, on any given policy position I agree with them… but it’s kind of like MtG. Sure, you might think MtG is fun - but you don’t want to admit to being an MtG player too early in a relationship, lest you get lumped into all the other MtG players. You know the ones.
Adam smith point of view won’t work here
Adam Smith literally wrote The Wealth of Nations, in part, to explain why Spain wasn’t the richest country in the world after they stole a shit ton of gold from some brown people.
White people today aren’t rich because of wealth they accumulated from exploiting brown people, because that wealth doesn’t accumulate over time. They are wealthy because they participated in a system with strong, stable institutions which created technological innovation.
Brown people didn’t benefit as much from this creation of wealth because they were excluded from the formal and informal social networks and opportunities which would have provided them the means to earn and accumulate wealth, and sometimes had their own wealth, social networks, and social opportunities destroyed. Which was, to be clear, a dick move. But it is not the same dick move that is being described above.
What you said is right , without industrialization there won’t be any rise in economic prosperity, but at the same time
if you look at present day Spanish colonies , much of the property , farmlands of high real estate value are majorly owned by descendants of white people over present generation of black people or native Americans tribes .
Another example would be australia, much of the wealthy real estate , farmlands and property are owned by white people , they got this wealth and property from there ancestors. How there ancestors got this were by displacement of aborginal people from fertile , beach side lands
That means present generation of white people in australia benefit from having high net worth properties , fertile farmlands whereas present day descendants of aborginal people only have dried land and have properties of low real estate value .
This is one of the Main thing causing disparity in australia, same thing would be applicable for usa where white people own majority of property, wealthy farmland .
Also Black people were curbed via Jim crows law which were made by white supremists to curb rise of black traders eventually leads to more economic inequality .
Jealous white supremists destroyed black wall street during Tulsa massacre
1)“Literally the only feminism I’ve heard about for the past 10 years is intersectional feminism.”
Actions speaks more than words ,
Unlike Scandinavian countries where feminists became so inclusive that they heavily prioritised welfare and empowerment of minority women belonging to Sami tribe community
Whereas in United States , everything is just in words not in action.
Also the percentage of white women voting for trump increased in United States shows what is the state of intersectionality in United States compared to Nordic countries,
2)“Very much a just-so story. Imo, a far more reasonable interpretation breaks voting patterns along tribal identity, while most women voting care about more things than the very amorphous “collective welfare of all women”. Interesting to note that 38% of latina voters voted for Trump, a statistic strangely absent from your argument”
Exactly—voting is shaped by identity. That’s the point. The large gap between white and Black women voters shows that “women” are not a unified political group, and race often outweighs gender solidarity in practice.
Bringing up Latina voters actually strengthens the argument—different groups of women have different lived realities and priorities. So main stream white feminists avoided problems of minorities despite making claims of suport for intersectionality
3)“I have never met a single self-identifying feminist who would not agree with this to some extent.”
Acknowledging history isn’t the same as centering it. The critique is that these histories are often treated as background context rather than shaping current feminist priorities and policy focus.
4)“I think Adam Smith would have a lot to say about this. Specifically, he would probably point out that the slave states really had an awfully small economy compared to the free states, and that most of the wealth generation which occurred in the US occurred due to productivity gains driven by technological innovations which were most aggressively exploited in the north. In the long run, few people could claim to have really benefitted noticeably from american slavery - it was just a shitty thing to do for no reason.”
That’s a very selective reading. slavery was deeply integrated into early American capitalism—financing, banking, and global trade . The effects didn’t just disappear; they shaped wealth distribution and institutions long-term.
Jim crows laws also disadvantaged black people in economic wealth creation , most of the black workers during this period didn’t had an opportunity to generate assets unlike white people.
productivity gains driven by technological innovations mostly benefitted white people because of restrictions for participation of black people in the economy
5)“I mean, from the pro-DEI arguments I keep hearing on lemmy, DEI seems to mostly involve removing names from resumes before they are rejected by AI or something. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this critique had merit - most people who benefit from adding footholds inside the system are people who know how to work the system.”
Yes—and that’s precisely the critique. When structural inequalities aren’t addressed, benefits often flow to those already closer to power like white women rather than the most marginalized groups.
6)“I really don’t have anything to say to this, because it feels like you kind of just shut down in the middle of a rant. Are you okay? Did you have a stroke?”
Dismissing the point doesn’t address it. There’s research showing that diversity initiatives and educational access programs often disproportionately benefit white women compared to more marginalized groups. That’s a structural outcome worth examining, not ignoring.
Well. They think they’re white. Whiteness isn’t just something someone can identify as, it’s a condition imposed by white supremacy and it’s contingent on the political moment. A lot of leopards-eating-faces moments come when they find out that their whiteness in Colombia is non-transferable to whiteness in the US. If the white supremacists decide having English as a second language or having a dark-skinned grandparent makes someone non-white then their skin color won’t actually protect them.
US feminism is mostly centering on the issues of white, middle-class women, failing to fully integrate the needs of women of color, marginalized, or lower-income women. This lack of a unified approach leads to fragmented advocacy and fragmented outcomes, rather than a broad movement.
Also 53% of white women vote for trump compared to 7% of black women who voted for trump. This showed that they gave more priority to racial identify over collective welfare of all women in usa .
White feminist often ignore or won’t acknowledge that in usa —specifically land ownership and early capital accumulation were built upon the exploitation of Native American and African people.
The systematic removal of Native Americans from their land provided massive amounts of property that was subsequently passed down through generations of white families, serving as a primary source of generational wealth which black women or native American women doesn’t have.
The wealth generated by the labor of enslaved African people in agriculture and other industries directly enriched white slaveholders and, by extension, their present generation . Jim crows law curbed wealth generation for black women compared to white women
Wealth disparity between Black and white women in the USA is severe, with white households holding nearly 10 times the median net worth of Black households, or approximately 15 cents for every dollar. Black women face lower income, less intergenerational wealth, lower homeownership rates, and higher debt, often keeping them in lower-wage service jobs without benefits.
white feminists often ignore these issues Best example would be :-1)DEI
Despite DEI mostly benefitted white women , most of the white feminist organisation ignored whether black women benefitted or not .they doesn’t cared about native American or black women . They often fail to view things from racial angle by focusing just on gender angle
2)Most of the educational scholarships are benefitted by white women over native American ,black women
Unlike Scandinavian countries where feminists became inclusive that they heavily prioritised welfare and empowerment of minority women belonging to Sami tribe community Whereas in United States , everything is just in words not in action.
Literally the only feminism I’ve heard about for the past 10 years is intersectional feminism.
Very much a just-so story. Imo, a far more reasonable interpretation breaks voting patterns along tribal identity, while most women voting care about more things than the very amorphous “collective welfare of all women”. Interesting to note that 38% of latina voters voted for Trump, a statistic strangely absent from your argument…
I have never met a single self-identifying feminist who would not agree with this to some extent.
I think Adam Smith would have a lot to say about this. Specifically, he would probably point out that the slave states really had an awfully small economy compared to the free states, and that most of the wealth generation which occurred in the US occurred due to productivity gains driven by technological innovations which were most aggressively exploited in the north. In the long run, few people could claim to have really benefitted noticeably from american slavery - it was just a shitty thing to do for no reason.
I mean, from the pro-DEI arguments I keep hearing on lemmy, DEI seems to mostly involve removing names from resumes before they are rejected by AI or something. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this critique had merit - most people who benefit from adding footholds inside the system are people who know how to work the system.
I really don’t have anything to say to this, because it feels like you kind of just shut down in the middle of a rant. Are you okay? Did you have a stroke?
Some historians appear to agree with additional support. During the 18th century, the slave economy was significant in the expansion of industry & commerce, but its value declined & was no longer needed by the 19th century. Slave-intensive sugar production that dominated the 18th century became less important in the 19th century as shipment of cotton products to international markets grew in significance. Unlike sugar, cotton had less need for slaves, and early cotton growers used slaves primarily because they were already slave-owners.
Slavery restrained economic development of the south, causing it to underperform economically: while it unevenly concentrated the lesser wealth produced there, the lesser wealth produced there benefitted the rest of the economy less than it could have. Free states didn’t benefit from the less wealth concentrated elsewhere.
Both things can be true though. The money from black slaves flowed into the pockets of white slaveowners AND it was economically a very dumb move.
If I steal a thousand bucks, and lose nine hundred and fifty while running away, I haven’t benefited much, but that doesn’t change the damage inflicted.
I completely agree.
My point is that saying I am rich because my grandfather snatched your grandmonther’s purse 70 years ago isn’t true if that purse had $0.70 and an empty snickers wrapper in it. Yes, the damage to the other is real, but not the supposed benefits afterward.
it’s a convoluted rant blaming white women for trumps win, or something. because if only they were the right kind of feminist they’d have seen the light! or something
I particularly enjoyed the random injection of NA land issues, as if that’s somehow the fault of white middle-class feminism?
Wild stuff. But your typical leftist lemmy rant that is completely out of touch and incoherent and blames other people for being ignorant fools for not being their particular flavor of leftism. Because if only everyone believed what they did, we’d live in a socialist utopia where injustice would not exist and butterflies would fly out of everyone’s assholes when they farted.
Your comment completely completely proves what white feminism is , that’s the lack of accountability and no consideration of rights of minority
Even United Nations acknowledge the need to move beyond white feminism :-
https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/explainer/intersectional-feminism-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters-right-now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism
Adam smith point of view won’t work here cause black people even after abolishment of slavery were not allowed to participate in economy in efficient way . Productivity of economy benefited only white people for wealth generation … In case black people if became successful,they were torn downed to the ground Best example would be what happened to black wall street and how it got destroyed during Tulsa massacre
deleted by creator
That would be really weird, considering I don’t even really consider myself to be a feminist. Sure, on any given policy position I agree with them… but it’s kind of like MtG. Sure, you might think MtG is fun - but you don’t want to admit to being an MtG player too early in a relationship, lest you get lumped into all the other MtG players. You know the ones.
Adam Smith literally wrote The Wealth of Nations, in part, to explain why Spain wasn’t the richest country in the world after they stole a shit ton of gold from some brown people.
White people today aren’t rich because of wealth they accumulated from exploiting brown people, because that wealth doesn’t accumulate over time. They are wealthy because they participated in a system with strong, stable institutions which created technological innovation.
Brown people didn’t benefit as much from this creation of wealth because they were excluded from the formal and informal social networks and opportunities which would have provided them the means to earn and accumulate wealth, and sometimes had their own wealth, social networks, and social opportunities destroyed. Which was, to be clear, a dick move. But it is not the same dick move that is being described above.
What you said is right , without industrialization there won’t be any rise in economic prosperity, but at the same time
if you look at present day Spanish colonies , much of the property , farmlands of high real estate value are majorly owned by descendants of white people over present generation of black people or native Americans tribes .
Another example would be australia, much of the wealthy real estate , farmlands and property are owned by white people , they got this wealth and property from there ancestors. How there ancestors got this were by displacement of aborginal people from fertile , beach side lands
That means present generation of white people in australia benefit from having high net worth properties , fertile farmlands whereas present day descendants of aborginal people only have dried land and have properties of low real estate value .
This is one of the Main thing causing disparity in australia, same thing would be applicable for usa where white people own majority of property, wealthy farmland . Also Black people were curbed via Jim crows law which were made by white supremists to curb rise of black traders eventually leads to more economic inequality .
Jealous white supremists destroyed black wall street during Tulsa massacre
1)“Literally the only feminism I’ve heard about for the past 10 years is intersectional feminism.”
Actions speaks more than words , Unlike Scandinavian countries where feminists became so inclusive that they heavily prioritised welfare and empowerment of minority women belonging to Sami tribe community Whereas in United States , everything is just in words not in action. Also the percentage of white women voting for trump increased in United States shows what is the state of intersectionality in United States compared to Nordic countries,
2)“Very much a just-so story. Imo, a far more reasonable interpretation breaks voting patterns along tribal identity, while most women voting care about more things than the very amorphous “collective welfare of all women”. Interesting to note that 38% of latina voters voted for Trump, a statistic strangely absent from your argument”
Exactly—voting is shaped by identity. That’s the point. The large gap between white and Black women voters shows that “women” are not a unified political group, and race often outweighs gender solidarity in practice. Bringing up Latina voters actually strengthens the argument—different groups of women have different lived realities and priorities. So main stream white feminists avoided problems of minorities despite making claims of suport for intersectionality
3)“I have never met a single self-identifying feminist who would not agree with this to some extent.”
Acknowledging history isn’t the same as centering it. The critique is that these histories are often treated as background context rather than shaping current feminist priorities and policy focus.
4)“I think Adam Smith would have a lot to say about this. Specifically, he would probably point out that the slave states really had an awfully small economy compared to the free states, and that most of the wealth generation which occurred in the US occurred due to productivity gains driven by technological innovations which were most aggressively exploited in the north. In the long run, few people could claim to have really benefitted noticeably from american slavery - it was just a shitty thing to do for no reason.”
That’s a very selective reading. slavery was deeply integrated into early American capitalism—financing, banking, and global trade . The effects didn’t just disappear; they shaped wealth distribution and institutions long-term. Jim crows laws also disadvantaged black people in economic wealth creation , most of the black workers during this period didn’t had an opportunity to generate assets unlike white people. productivity gains driven by technological innovations mostly benefitted white people because of restrictions for participation of black people in the economy
5)“I mean, from the pro-DEI arguments I keep hearing on lemmy, DEI seems to mostly involve removing names from resumes before they are rejected by AI or something. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this critique had merit - most people who benefit from adding footholds inside the system are people who know how to work the system.”
Yes—and that’s precisely the critique. When structural inequalities aren’t addressed, benefits often flow to those already closer to power like white women rather than the most marginalized groups.
6)“I really don’t have anything to say to this, because it feels like you kind of just shut down in the middle of a rant. Are you okay? Did you have a stroke?”
Dismissing the point doesn’t address it. There’s research showing that diversity initiatives and educational access programs often disproportionately benefit white women compared to more marginalized groups. That’s a structural outcome worth examining, not ignoring.
Here’s how to quote
> quoted texthow to write a list
how to do both
You can learn this & more from any markdown guide like the one shown when using the help button in the lemmy toolbar.
It’s crazy how you got downvoted despite having good counter points …
How does this explain 39% of Latina women voting for trump?
I’m thinking many people who voted for Trump did not love everything about him, such as the racism, but settled for him for other varied reasons.
Latina people are white , Colombia is the best example , were most of the Latina people like to identify as white over mestizo or black identity.
Most of the Latina people identify more as white than black or mestizo
Well. They think they’re white. Whiteness isn’t just something someone can identify as, it’s a condition imposed by white supremacy and it’s contingent on the political moment. A lot of leopards-eating-faces moments come when they find out that their whiteness in Colombia is non-transferable to whiteness in the US. If the white supremacists decide having English as a second language or having a dark-skinned grandparent makes someone non-white then their skin color won’t actually protect them.