Life in the World of a Third Waver (Episode 1: The Office Gulag)

(This is the first episode of a fictional series, meant to examine how Third Wavers see the world from their perspective.  For fact-based topics, see other parts of this site.)

To whomever may be reading this, I’ve decided to start this blog as a way of chronicling my ongoing experiences under the patriarchal oppression, for as long as I am free and able to do so.  My hopes are to document these events so that another generation, perhaps somewhere in the distant future, finally free from the chains of tyranny and sexism, may look back in wonder of how things were in the days when men still existed.  And perhaps if the male species does still exist during that time, it will strengthen the resolve of our granddaughters to never allow such a thing to happen to womankind again.

Our situation has been extremely well documented so far, especially by our sisters-in-arms, like Anita Sarkesian and Laci Green.  Men rule absolutely everything, as they feel they are entitled to our bodies and to our very lives.  We have virtually no say – much less any actual representation – in what happens to us.  My efforts now are focused mostly on survival.

I woke up this morning in my condominium to the sound of my espresso machine, making a cup that will be one of the very few joys throughout my day.  My pitifully obsolete plasma TV shows me images of the male-run world.  I see male news journalists, male politicians, and male CEOs.  And how quaint – a male CEO is now also becoming a male politician.  I didn’t know it was possible for things to get any darker than they already were.

I arrived at the office, and immediately noticed just how cold it was. In fact, every day it seems it’s a bit colder than it was the day before! I’m starting to bring a jacket and hoodie to work, just so I don’t freeze to death. Then I came across an article online that explained it wasn’t just me – men really are using the air condition as part of their War on Women.  They’re clearly trying to force us out of the workplace, and back into the kitchen, where they think we belong.

I bundled up over my keyboard, and tried my best to just keep typing.  They expect me to type no less than 2 full page reports a day, 500 characters each, and for only 8,000 a month.  And now I must do this in the bitter cold.

I look up at the thermostat, located only a few feet away from my desk.  It hangs there as yet another symbol of patriarchal oppression.  It mocks me, as I shiver and try to finish my work.

One day, we will be free.

Life in the World of a Third Waver: Introduction

Hello everyone, and welcome to the first episode of a new series I’ll be doing!

I just recently came across this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11760417/Air-conditioning-in-your-office-is-sexist.-True-story.html – explaining how office air conditioning is sexist.  This is no doubt evidence of the patriarchy, AND male privilege.  Clearly, women are still struggling for equal rights.  Because you can’t just get up and turn the air condition down if you’re too cold, or put on a jacket.

This made me consider just how absolutely positively every single thing in life can now be called sexist, or attributed to the patriarchy, based entirely on whether or not a woman finds it objectionable.  We’ve gone from blatant, inarguable “you can’t be a doctor because you’re a woman” type of sexism, to a “war against women through air conditioning”, and “misogyny is real because Mario saves the princess”.  If you ask a woman to smile?  Male privilege.  Tell a woman how wonderful she is?  Benign sexism.  Look at a woman and feel any sexual attraction towards her without permission?  Male gaze.

I began imagining what it must be like to actually believe in all this.  What if a person got out of bed, and not only believed in all this, but actually lived it?  What if, in their mind, the world existed exactly the way the Third Wave says it does – with no exaggerations, just following their description exactly?  It seems this would be symptomatic of severe schizophrenia, similar to the character in A Beautiful Mind.  So I decided to write an ongoing series that would document the life of such a person.

I welcome any feedback, and I hope you enjoy!

Patriarchy Theory Explained

This post has been a long time coming!  Patriarchy is one of the 5 sacred tenets Third Wavers frequently use to prove how persecuted women are in modern day America.  But lets not jump on that boat right away.  First, what exactly is “patriarchy”?

That depends on who you ask.  As with any belief system, there are multiple interpretations.

I’ve covered definitions promoted by Everyday Feminism, a site which sports an impressive 4.5 million monthly visitors, and even offers courses in online feminism.  They define patriarchy as “a system of domination by which the wealthy, white, male ruling class has authority over everyone else“.

I’ve covered another, slightly more sophisticated definition by youtube user “marinashutup”, where it’s simply defined as “a social system that values masculinity over femininity.”

Then of course there’s the very intelligently written Finally Feminism 101 definition, which states that patriarchy is “one form of social stratification via a power/dominance hierarchy – an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a ranking of inferiorities) and its privileges”.

This definition immediately excludes all modern developed nations, as they are not at all stratified based on power or dominance of any sort.  Business offices are populated based on qualifications, work ethic, and networking, not on sexist discrimination, and there now exists over 50 peer reviewed studies confirming that, some of which you can see explained step-by-step here (in fact, to date, there does not exist a single study anywhere in the world which demonstrates a link between sexism and the lack of female career advancement or pay scale as a demographic in first world countries).  Political offices are populated based on vote (as that’s how all modern democracies operate), and studies show that women simply choose not to run (if they were kept out of office just for being women, how do you explain the women who are currently *IN* office now?)  Finally, domestic violence has been shown again and again to happen equally between men and women – except that women have an entire branch of the justice department devoted just to them.

Finally Feminism goes on to say: “Historically, patriarchy operates through the disproportionate (sometimes exclusive) conferring of leadership status (and formal titles indicating that status) on men, a tradition characterised by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, no matter what talents and expertise they might possess (unless there are exceptional circumstances resulting from intersections with other social hierarchies conferring high status that gives rare women political authority e.g. the royal lineage of Elizabeth I, or the divine claim to authority of Joan of Arc).

Looks like they tried to cover their asses half way through there by pointing out exceptions and calling them “rare”.  Like I said, it’s more intelligently written.

However, how exactly is leadership status among womenrare“?  I mean seriously, I was able to hyperlink nearly every individual word in this paragraph with a unique female ruler or leader at some point in historyRareThey make it sound like only two women in history were ever not oppressed.

Now, does social stratification based on male dominance exist at all?  Well, as a matter of fact, it does!  Look at modern day Afghanistan and how women are treated there.  The fact that we can see clear examples of this type of environment helps us immediately recognize the lack of said environment in any developed nation.  It’s also clear from the sheer number of women rulers and leaders throughout history (yep, every word hyperlinkd – I could list off a hundred more), that this “domination by men / oppression of women” narrative was not exactly ubiquitous, nor is it accurate.

I’ve been studying feminist archeology over the last several months.  Incredibly boring interesting stuff.  Two books in particular have been my guide: Merlin Stone’s When God Was a Woman, and Riane Eisler’s The Chalice and the Blade.  These are both utterly fantastic books – Merlin Stone in particular gives an absolutely brutal, pain staking, point-by-point account of ancient societies and how they lived.  Make sure you have plenty of coffee on standby, especially if you’re like me and are not particularly interested in archeology, but are determined to learn where this notion of “patriarchy” actually originated from.

I’m going to give you the fun, easy-to-read version of this research here, as opposed to the 257 page name-every-ancient-city-that-ever-existed-and-describe-in-detail-what-life-was-like-there version (seriously, finishing that book and the associated research was a major life accomplishment).

Once upon a time (circa 10,000 BCE), sex was celebrated, and women ruled the world.  Women were viewed as sacred “bringers of life”, so they lived in temples and banged any guy they wanted for fun (the world wasn’t heavily populated, so making babies was generally a good thing).  Now, to be clear, this “women ruled the world” part is somewhat disputed – but what’s clear is that there was no male domination, no “patriarchy” as it were, religion centered on goddess worship, properties were owned and managed by women, the leaders were women, and inheritance passed from mother to daughter (matrilineal society).  So it’s not a huge leap then to consider that they might also have been matriarchal, and there are a considerable number of archeologist that think this was absolutely the case.  Things remained this way until around 5,000 BCE, when certain regions became male dominated (we’ll discuss more on that in a bit).

Were men dominated in “matriarchy”?  Were they oppressed and denied rights?

That’s not entirely clear, and probably varied a bit by region.

Absolute ruler of all things within her realm.... in a patriarchy???

Absolute ruler of all things within her realm…. in a patriarchy???

The Minoan civilization on Crete, among several others, appears to have been rather egalitarian.  However, in Anatolia, there was this idea that if a man slept with a high priestess, he should never ever again sleep with another woman ever – even to the point of him castrating himself to make sure it doesn’t happen.  Castration wasn’t particularly frowned upon, and was even romanticized.  In ancient Babylon, they had a pretty strange New Year’s tradition, where they brought the king inside the temple, stripped him naked, humiliated him, and beat him up.  In Egypt, the women would go out picking up men, and in some cases slipping them intoxicants to make them less resistant (When Bill Cosby was a Woman).  While in the Sumerian region (Elam to be specific), the men who worked in temples were forced to strip in front of the women.

Now just imagine if we reversed the genders, and it was men doing all this to women.  We’d hear no end about how women were oppressed by that mean ol’ patriarchy.  Kinda putting a dent in that whole “women oppressed for thousands of years” jive, ain’t it?

So now on to that 5,000 BCE bit mentioned earlier, where things started to change.  As tribal societies settled down, and city-states formed, these different cultures began competing for resources.  You might have thought it was only men who go out and conquer, but women can get jealous of what other women got, and they want men to go out and get it for them.  Women put men in charge of the fighting, since they were stronger and are generally considered far more expendable.  Women, after all, were the “bringers of life” (a notion found repeatedly throughout the ancient world), and were thus far more valued.  Need a war?  Let men fight it out.

Giving men more power of agency meant they could build better armies, and win more wars. In this way, women helped lay the groundwork for what would later be “patriarchy”.  Female goddess worship turned to male god worship. Greeks went from worshiping Rhea to worshiping Zeus (we don’t even see Zeus as the king-father guy until 3,000 BC or there abouts, when northern invaders began battling their way across southern Europe).

As men started to gain power and religion gradually came to focus on male god worship, the groundwork for the clusterfuck of “sexual morality” had been laid.  Now here’s where that tricky intersection between Matriarchy and Patriarchy show up, so pay close attention to this next part.

In matriarchal societies, property was passed from mother to daughter. This was the established line of power – a mother always knows who her daughter is, and no one cared who the father was. HOWEVER! If men could make it so we KNEW who the father was, we could start a PATRILINEAL line of succession!  Men had been gaining power militarily for centuries, thanks to circumstances previously mentioned, so naturally they wanted a patrilineal line of inheritance so men would have even more agency. The only way to do this was to convince women it was bad to have sex with more than 1 guy. If she had sex with only the ONE GUY, we always know who the father is. If she messes around, we can’t know for sure, as DNA testing wasn’t around yet.

Trying to “convince” women not to sleep around didn’t work. Lots of records exist of women as late as 500 AD still up in the temples having men line up for them, so they could bang them one after the other and have kids out of wedlock. This is where we get quite a number of bible passages condemning “The Great Whore” and “Harlots” and “temple prostitutes” and so on. However, calling them names wasn’t effective, so men began straight up slaughtering the women who wouldn’t stay “moral”, using the power of agency granted to them through centuries of fighting.

The need for patrilineal inheritance is reflected in how the laws were set up.  You’re probably familiar with some of these from the bible.  If a woman cheated on her husband with another man, then both the woman AND THE OTHER MAN were put to death. However, if the woman was raped, she was married to the man who raped her. Why kill the man in the first example? It’s about father-son lineage, that’s why.  That’s also why it’s okay to sell your daughters into sex slavery – hey, the only thing that counts is whether or not the man knows which kid is his.

The next step was to finalize this process by making it legal through the institution of marriage.  And thus, “patriarchy” became a system where men and masculinity were definitely more valued than women and femininity.  It’s a system where women can be raped and beaten, and everyone’s totally okay with it.  It’s a system that ensures patrilineal succession by shaming and punishing all female sexuality outside of marriage.

It’s a system where men make the rules in favor of men, *not* a system where women have so much power that they can ruin a man’s life with just a simple accusation and nothing more.  It’s a system where men are valued because they are men, *not* because they went to college for 4 years, studied real hard, earned a degree, then gradually worked their way up to a 6 figure income.  It is a system where men are in charge only because they are men, *not* a system where men are voted into elected offices – by women – through democracy.

(And should AronRa ever see this: hopefully this answers your question.  Women being “slut shamed” is not clear evidence of a modern day patriarchy; it’s an artifact of an earlier Judaeo-Christian effort to suppress female sexuality, and is why this mindset still exist mostly in religious circles and almost nowhere else.  It survives on in the same way many linguistic artifacts from Greek mythology continue in the English language.  Men being called sexist pigs for everything they do is a backlash against this, starting with the rad-fems during the second wave movement, and being adopted by the Third Wave in the current movement, which abandoned the focus on women’s rights almost entirely in favor of villainizing men.)

So yes, the fact is that patriarchy actually did exist, and still does exist, in some regions of the world.  The desire to establish such a system was spearheaded by the Levites at around the beginning of the first century, and between 300 and 500 AD, a number of pagan and goddess worshiping sacred sites were shut down and either outlawed or converted into churches by the then Christian emperors, including Constantine.

The severity of the treatment of women varied from place to place, and of course changed over time.  Much the same way not all men were horribly oppressed in every ancient society before then, nor to the same extent.

By the time the middle ages and the feudal system had come to Europe, women could once again be found in nearly every social strata of society.  A peasant was a peasant, whether man or woman.  Both had limited options.  Lords of course had power over them – but so did Ladies.  And while King Henry the VIII was ill-tempered and had 6 wives, Queen Marry of Scots was even more ill-tempered and had 3 times as many people burned alive.

Masculinity was more valued than femininity, but only in certain places, and for certain times.  Femininity was more valued than masculinity, but only in certain places, and for certain times.  Both Patriarchy and Matriarchy have existed, but neither exist in the present day US, or in any other modern, developed nation.

A Response to Everyday Feminism’s 7 Reasons Why Class Is a Feminist Issue

This is a response a post on Everyday Feminism, which discusses the impact “class systems” (under capitalism) have with modern feminism (the 3rd Wave, of course).

We’re not trying to pick on everyday feminism… it’s just… they’re the Fox News of social theory.  So it’s kind of hard to resist.

A while back, I finished a work comparing classical and modern socialism with a description of other socio-economic and political systems with related talking points in an easy-to-understand and fun-to-read way, posted here (it’s a bit thorough, so you might want to just skim over it).

Romney poor people buy more money

Because only banks can do that.

In summary, capitalism is nothing more than reinvestment of capital back into the means of production. Free Market capitalism refers to the business activities often associated with this process, and does usually give rise to a class system of some kind. However, you can also have class systems without social immobility, but we’ll get into that in a sec.

From the article:

>> As I previously mentioned, living in a capitalism society means that we all need to have some sort of access to money in order to meet our basic needs. Even though food, water, and shelter might seem like human rights, in reality, they aren’t a guarantee.

*** I totally agree here. In the above link, scroll down to the point titled “Modern Socialist Ideals”. Our modern system of free market capitalism is no longer arranged in such a way that allows an individual working full time to afford these basic necessities, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be considered human rights.

>> The class you’re born into is usually the class you will remain in for life, especially if you’re poor or working class.

*** But this is where we start to differ.

The author is incorrect in suggesting that the class system works by keeping a person where they are forever. This is called “social mobility” (you can find a quick reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility).

As I alluded to in the link above, in decades passed, America pretty much ranked number 1 in nearly every category, and by a considerable margin at that. In fact, a wall was built between the communist countries and capitalist countries, and people constantly risked their lives to get from one side to the other side, and nobody ever climbed the wall back in the other direction. Ever. I somehow doubt people clawed their way through barbed wire and risked getting shot all so they could remain in the poor working class forever.

The things we’re experiencing now are very recent developments which were given a great deal of momentum from the collapse of the housing bubble of 2008, combined with replacing traditional job market processes with an online format.

You can’t tell me your average middle class boy scout would grow up and open a convenience store in the early 1960’s which would later become, on its own, the world’s 25th most powerful economy, because he was forever destined to stay in the class he was born in.

No matter which way you cut it, class is not the cause.

>> Women are disproportionately poorer and are found to be in poverty more often than men. This is true across racial and ethnic lines, but women of color face higher rates of poverty than white women and are twice as likely to be in poverty.

*** As usual, 3rd Wavers consistently insist that women are helpless victims.  The only time we ever hear “what was she wearing” in the media, is from 3rd Wavers.  The only time we ever hear “She was asking for it” – is from 3rd Wavers.

But let’s take a closer look at this “Women in Poverty” claim.  It took me less than 5 minutes of research to find the cause, but if 3rd Wavers actually did any research or cared about the truth, then they wouldn’t be 3rd Wavers anymore.

According to http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm ,

The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted for family size, composition, and age of householder.

– also –

” It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance);”

– AND –

“Its strict definition of measurement units—”family”—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children.”

fact checking memes before postingSo there you have it.  Women may be counted as “in poverty” simply because they fall below the official “income” amount required from a place of employment. Following these definition, it’s very possible (and likely) for a woman to get numerous benefits from multiple sources that men will never see, and still be counted as poverty stricken.

Of course, there are women in serious need, and who definitely need help, but they get left out because we’re trying to make ALL WOMEN look like victims.

>> Women also make less money than men for doing the same work (yes, even when factors such as hours worked are controlled).

*** No, they aren’t.

Keep saying it though.  Tell a lie loud enough, for long enough, and people will start to believe it.  Women have to be victims in every possible situation.  It’s that perception which grants them additional privilege.  The more the victim-hood, the more privilege that is granted.

I’m particularly fond of how Christina Hoff Sommers handles this.  She’s of course caste as an heretic “anti-feminist”, because if you don’t agree with the Third Wave’s sacred doctrine, that’s what you get labeled.



>> When women have lower economic standing, they have less power and autonomy across all areas of their lives. Money, after all, is power.

*** Women have less power.

A woman walks down the street doing whatever she wants, saying whatever she wants, wearing whatever she wants, because she’s an empowered woman.

But a man can’t even speak in public. Why? Because women have said so.  He can’t go “PSST” – because that’s street harassment. He can’t look at a woman either – his eyes must stay affixed to the ground before him, otherwise it’s “male gaze”! He’s not even allowed to have a swimsuit calendar in his home, because that’s sexual objectification. His behavior constantly monitored and scrutinized by women, because…

Women have less power???

Women can beat up a man in public, and people cheer.

A man asks a woman to smile, and that’s male privilege.

A man gets called a fat piece of garbage because he’s overweight. Call a woman that, and it’s fat-shaming. A man gets called a pervert for looking a porn. Call a woman that, and it’s slut-shaming.

A man has to be a doctor. If he’s a nurse, he gets laughed at. If he’s a nurse’s aid, he gets laughed at even harder. If he’s an orderly, he’s a loser.

A woman can be a doctor, a nurse, a nurse’s aid, an orderly – or hell she can just stay home and watch reruns of General Hospital – and it’s GIRL POWER spot along the spectrum! (Then of course, blame men when too many of them achieve too much due to these societal pressures).

… but women have less power.

Sure.

Okay.

You know why this bothers me, by the way?

I was homeless for years.  I’ve slept in parking lots and under bridges while holding down 2 jobs. I never smoked, never drank, stayed out of trouble, and kept myself in shape by doing pushups with my packs on, and doing pull ups off street signs. I shopped smart – a bag of spinach has all the potassium and magnesium a person needs, and costs only a few dollars.  A can of tuna has all the protein I need, plus lots of B vitamins to keep me going.

I kept at it like this for years.  I complained, but I didn’t whine.  Complaining is what you do when you bitch about how heavy all your packs are when you’re walking 3 miles to your next appointment because you don’t have 2 dollars for a bus ticket.  Whining is when you give up cuz you just plain don’t want to try anymore.  Complaining is understandable, especially when you got something to gripe about.  Confiding how much your situation hurts to a close friend isn’t just smart, it’s emotionally healthy.  But whining?  You can save it.

It was after I began my transition, and started becoming a woman, that things miraculously started changing.  Suddenly, I was off the streets.  I got housing just 2 weeks later.  I got my own place, with my own bathroom.  All mine.  I was on a housing program for years prior to that, and within WEEKS of transitioning, that suddenly happened.

Men started offering to do favors for me – favors that never would have been offered to me before.  I would drop something and three different guys would reach to pick it up.  If something was too heavy, I didn’t have to carry it.  I could ask a guy politely and he’d do it for me.  I even had people buying groceries for me when I didn’t have any food.  Doesn’t this all just sound completely THE OPPOSITE of everything you’ve heard from feminism so far?

I also got a job in a career that I love just a few weeks after I got housed.  I now earn my own money.  And if I wanted, I could find a boyfriend who’d have to pay half my bills while I keep all that money.  It’s just incredible how this works!  And I’ve only been living as a woman for less than 2 years now.

So after all that, it *does* rub me the wrong way when I see little princesses, with alllllllllll these advantages their whole damn lives, who were handed comfortable air-conditioned office jobs everywhere they went, sit and whine about how unfair things are.  Or in this case, about how much power they don’t have because things are “classist”.  As far as I’m concerned, the female class is the ruling class right now.  I have the power to ruin a man’s life.  All I have to do is point the finger, claim harassment, and he could lose his job.

And just as an aside, in the link provided that cites their sources for the supposed wage gap, found here: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination , we also see research provided for “sex and race discrimination”, found here: http://www.iwpr.org/publications/resources/consent-decree/consent-decrees .

Race discrimination is outside the scope of this article, so I’m not responding to that.

But lets look at sex discrimination in the workplace. How is being measured?  According to the website:

“IWPR, in collaboration with The WAGE Project, Inc., examined consent decree remedies for sex and race discrimination in the workplace.”

And what is a “consent decree”, you ask?your fact checking is bad and you should feel bad

Consent decrees are court approved settlements of law suits where the defendant does not admit guilt but agrees to the implementation of a set of measures to remedy and prevent future occurrence of potentially unlawful practices.

How bout that. Taking the time to actually read the sources you cite.

Now remember, if you’re a woman, and someone goes “PSST” – that’s harassment.  If someone looks at you, talks to you, or happens to be a man on a sunny day, then that’s probably also harassment.

So when you’re dealing with a group like 3rd Wavers, and they start threatening lawsuits (because they don’t have any power), chances are, you’re going to make concessions quick, fast, and in a hurry.  If a 3rd Waver doesn’t like what’s on your coffee mug – OK!  THATS IT!  Everyone, stop bringing coffee mugs with anything printed on them!  If a 3rd Waver doesn’t like the bathing suit calendar – OK!  That’s it! Take it down!  Hurry up before she sues us!

And now, according to “Consent Decree” you’re counting each one of those as an instance of sex discrimination.  Which is utterly.  Friggen.  Mind blowing.  So even if the man throws his hands up, drops what he’s doing, and immediately surrenders and complies with all your demands, he is still counted as being oppressive and you’re still counted as being powerless.

Meanwhile, if it happens to be a man who doesn’t like something, does he has a snowball’s chance in hell at having his claim taken seriously?  Would something like that ever show up on a consent decree?  I mean men are told not to complain anyway.  If something’s bothering you, tough it out.  Be a man.

Anyway, back to the article.

>>“Classism works hand in hand with racism”

^^^ Again, although “white privilege” does exist, and is a real thing, race is outside the scope of this response.

But I want to hammer the point of “class” home just a bit harder.

Lets say you put yourself through college, study real hard, work part time to make ends meet that whole while, pass all your exams, and earn a 4 year degree in radiology.

Having done all that work, and earned a special set of skills, do you not agree that you should have the potential to earn more?

I 100% agree that we should not decide absolutely everything according to the price system.  Food, water, and shelter should be considered human rights.  For every homeless person in the US right now, there are 6 empty houses.  That’s ridiculous.  But just a few years ago, a person with a bachelors degree could have put in over a hundred applications for work and not hear anything back for months.  Such a person clearly wants to work, and is doing everything right.  They shouldn’t have food withheld from them simply because there’s no work available, and they ought to have a place to stay during that time.

But a place to stay does not mean their own private condominium with a personal helicopter, and food does not mean imported gourmet Nasi Lemak served with caviar and red wine.

It’s okay to want those things!  And if the opportunity arises, then a person should have the freedom to work towards them if they want.

And the very act of having those things?  Simply having them changes how people perceive you and relate to you.  That, in a word, is “class”.

There’s nothing at all wrong with class.  The problem is having wealth forever and ever because you were born with it, creating a system where no one else except you has a chance to earn it. That, we can agree on, but that’s not necessarily a fundamental quality of class.

>> Being able to be a “professional” feminist is a privilege — class privilege, to be specific.

*** That’s not true sweety. As a 3rd Waver, you can help spread misinformation like the wage gap, make uninformed posts about classism, and conflate unrelated topics like racism to give your topic more credibility, no matter what class you belong to! Why, you’re doing it right now!

You’re helping women to look like victims in a system where they have so much power, that even the very rules that govern men’s lives must now bend and kneel before women. If I’m homeless, I get housed. If I’m hungry, I get fed. In both of these I skip ahead of men who have been waiting much longer me. I have special clinics and shelters set up for me too! And thanks to the wage gap myth, I will soon have the option to not work nearly as hard as men, or as much as men, and at less dangerous jobs than men, and yet still get paid just as much thanks to people like you demanding that it wouldn’t be fair otherwise.

And even after all that, if I don’t like something, I can complain, have my complaint answered immediately, and it still counts as wrong under a “consent decree”.

You’re doing great things here.