a Fight over at La chola (Bfp's?) pad, in regard to apostate, who was an out and out anti-choicer subjectivist last I checked but anyway:
If we define privelage as relative to societal violence - so that privelage is a matter of being protected by and from societal violence, and oppression is being subject to societal violence - then what we find is that the eugenicist arguements that Sanger and similar upperclass white feminist put forth to rationalize PP to natalist men who worried about the everpresent War O' Teh Wombs becomes an excersiing of privelage those white women did to avoid having to fight the fight neccesary to push PP through anyway.
Because that's the problem with the pragmatic after the fact rationalization - the whole "we had to burn the ghettos to save them" (as the polish security forces said to the Nazi Kommandants) idea explictly puts it forth as a silly zero-sum issue but it wasn't - utilising white privelage and upperclass privelage, upperclass white feminists sold woc to the ministrations of eugenicist white men and the violence they love to do to POC "for their own good" (which includes rape funnily enough, because clearly it's better for a black women to have a mixed race baby with superior white genes than not eh? Which of course means that Kant's Intent Fallacy fails once again) becuase doing so gave them a socially normal and culturally approved way for upperclass white women to obtain their own rights faster and easier than otherwise.
And I keep the economic class status of Sanger et al connected to their racial class status for the simple reason that poor white women got fucked over, by the selling out to the eugenicist patriarchs those society feminists did, almost as much as WOC did - becuase all white people were not equal and the fact that sanger et al's abusive attitude towards the poor in general is often papered over is really fucking annoying in its own right.
The early feminist movement fucked over a hell of a lot of women for an almost idealized version of the "screw you - I got mine" centrist creed, and they did the screwing over for the sad and pathetic reason that doing so was easier, irregardless of their declarations-sans-proof that it was "neccesary" (a cry centrists always make to justify their laziness) for the upperclass white women than to actually give a fuck about other people's humanity.
Making them spiritual forerunners of the modern anti-choice movement more than anything else.
But here;s where it gets tricky and here's where the whole "learning from history lest you repeat it" business comes in; you don't have to have a mystical love of spermatozoa and brain-dead uterine parasites to be anti-choice, any more than Sanger et all needed such mysticism to get their -isms on. Becuase the only thing anti-choicers are unified by is their hypocrisy, their stupidity, their psuedo-science leanings, their blind willingness to hate women and their position that some women deserve choice more than others, according to some mystical magical personality test that just so happens to declare that upperclass white lady's shit rose petals.
If the modern pro-choice movement cannot handle having selfish little anti-choicers as part of their history, it is therefore in a terrible position to deal with their, our, anti-choicers in the present. Therefore it is clearly too weak and pathetic to do anything other than die anyway, and we should start anew with something that ain't inherently broken.
I ma pretty damn certain that My pro-choice movement can handle the anti-choice little racist, classist centrist asshats who love the idea behind the whole thing (because it suits them) but hate the inclusiveness that means people who are not like them get treated equally to them, and it can handle it by A) owning it's history without erasure of poor non-white people or out and out revisionism and B) being willing to deal with its present sans "we're better than them therefore we're perfect" willful, cliqueish blindness and general sofia coppella shenanigans.
How about yours?