Who Stole Feminism?

[TC]

I wanted to post this except from Christina Hoff's book Who Stole Feminism?, cause i thought it was neat. I don't agree with maybe everything that Christina Hoff says and the parts she focuses on are not necessarily the ones i'm most interested in, but i thought it would make a good discussion.


I typed it out from the book so please excuse any slight misquotes.

"Catherine Strimpson, a former vice-provost at Rutgers and recently selected to head the distinguished MacArthur Fellowships Program, was introduced as “an enraged and engaged intellectual”

Gloria Steinem took the microphone and explained why she was enraged: “I have become even more angry…the alternative is depression.” To deal with patriarchal schools, she recommended an “underground system of education,” a bartering system in which a midwife could exchange her services “in return for Latin American history.” Steinem believes things are so bad for contemporary American women that we might have to consider setting up centers for training political organizers.

For someone like me, who does not believe that American women are in a state of siege (and so lacks the basis for the kind of anger that drives out depression), the conference was depressing. It was clear that these well-favored women sincerely felt aggrieved. It was equally clear to me that the bitter spirits they were dispensing to the American public were unwholesome and divisive.

For whom do these “engaged and enraged” women at the conference speak? Who is their constituency? It might be said that as academics and intellectuals they speak for no one but themselves. But that would be to mistake their mission. They see themselves as the second wave of the Feminist movement, as the moral vanguard fighting a war to save women. But do American women need to be saved by anyone?

The women at the Heilbrun conference are the New Feminists: articulate, prone to self-dramatization, and chronically offended. Many of the women on the “anger” panel were tenured professors at prestigious universities. All had fine and expensive educations. Yet, listening to them one would never guess that they live in a country whose women are legally as free as the men and whose institutions of higher learning now have more female than male students.

It was inevitable that such single-minded and energetic women would find their way into leadership positions. It is unfortunate for American feminism that their ideology and attitude are diverting the women’s movement from its true purposes.

The presumption that men are collectively engaged in keeping women down invites feminist bonding into a resentful community. When a Heilbrun or Steinem advises us that men are not about to relinquish their hegemony, the implicit moral is that women must form self-protective enclaves. In such enclaves women can speak out safely and help one another to recover from the indignities they suffer under patriarchy. In such enclaves they can think of how to change or provide alternatives to the “androcentric” institutions that have always prevailed in education and the workplace. The message is that women must be “gynocentric,” that they must join with and be loyal only to women.

The traditional, classically liberal, humanistic feminism that was initiated more than 150 years ago was very different. It had a specific agenda, demanding for women the same rights before the law that men enjoyed. The suffrage had to be won, the laws regarding property, marriage, divorce, and child custody had to be made equitable. More recently, abortion rights had to be protected. The old mainstream feminism concentrated on legal reforms. In seeking specific and achievable ends, it did not promote a gynocentric stance; self-segregation of women had no part in an agenda that sought equality and equal access for women.

Most American women subscribe philosophically to that older, “First Wave” kind of feminism whose main goal is equality, especially in politics and education. A First Wave, “mainstream,” or “equity” feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, without discrimination...The equity agenda may not yet be fully achieved, but by any reasonable measure equity feminism has turned out to be a great American success story.

Heilbrun, Steinem, and other current feminist notables ride this First Wave for its popularity and its moral authority, but most of them adhere to a new, more radical “Second Wave” doctrine: that women, even modern American women, are in thrall to “a system of male dominance” variously referred to as “heteropatriarchy” or the sex/gender system. According to one feminist theorist, the sex/gender system is “that complex process whereby bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined to command, the other to obey” Sex/gender feminism (“Gender feminism” for short) is the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders. But it lacks a grass roots constituency."
- Christina Hoff, pg. 21-22 Who Stole Feminism

[Wanted Man]

It was the Grinch.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Seems like an example of the greater trend of bourgoeis identity politics that eventually fractured the New Left after the end of the Vietnam War. Once the working-class was no longer the main focus of the movement, the American left began to lose its comprhensive social vision and started focusing on the sole interests of particular oppressed groups to the detriment of all of them. I've also heard some fairly convincing scholarship in the past that "identity politics" organizations, including "second-wave feminism" (and "third-wave" for that matter) were at least partially funded by CIA front groups and corporate foundations.

[Raubleaux]

By biggest beef with "feminism" is that it really means "white feminism" most of the time. Gloria Steinem is a perfect example of what I'd call white feminism.

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
Seems like an example of the greater trend of bourgoeis identity politics that eventually fractured the New Left after the end of the Vietnam War. Once the working-class was no longer the main focus of the movement, the American left began to lose its comprhensive social vision and started focusing on the sole interests of particular oppressed groups to the detriment of all of them.

I'm not so sure about this, Nicky. On the one had, I am a communist and agree that class struggle must be the primary focus. However, as an anti-racist I also see that white supremacy has been one of the primary factors undermining the class struggle in America, which is why I feel that we need to make anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc foundational.

A lot of phony "leftists" espouse the kind of comments you made -- one of the more famous ones is Todd Gitlin. I doubt you'd want to find yourself in the same boat as him. So I find myself kind of in the middle of this controversy. I sympathize with those who want to return to class politics and class struggle, but I vehemently disagree with those who pretend that racism isn't a problem and shouldn't be a major focus of our energies.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by Raubleaux+Jun 6 2006, 06:52 PM--> (Raubleaux @ Jun 6 2006, 06:52 PM) By biggest beef with "feminism" is that it really means "white feminism" most of the time. Gloria Steinem is a perfect example of what I'd call white feminism.

Nicky Scarfo

Seems like an example of the greater trend of bourgoeis identity politics that eventually fractured the New Left after the end of the Vietnam War. Once the working-class was no longer the main focus of the movement, the American left began to lose its comprhensive social vision and started focusing on the sole interests of particular oppressed groups to the detriment of all of them.

I'm not so sure about this, Nicky. On the one had, I am a communist and agree that class struggle must be the primary focus. However, as an anti-racist I also see that white supremacy has been one of the primary factors undermining the class struggle in America, which is why I feel that we need to make anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc foundational.

A lot of phony "leftists" espouse the kind of comments you made -- one of the more famous ones is Todd Gitlin. I doubt you'd want to find yourself in the same boat as him. So I find myself kind of in the middle of this controversy. I sympathize with those who want to return to class politics and class struggle, but I vehemently disagree with those who pretend that racism isn't a problem and shouldn't be a major focus of our energies. [/b]

You're misinterpreting what I said. Of course anti-racism/anti-sexism/anti-bigotry in general should be foundational, but without an understanding of class society we are left with the devolution into bourgeois identity politics, where everyone is fighting for their own narrow interests and there is no common fight, no comprehensive social vision.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I dont think anything has happened to feminism really.

Its just that western women might not think that western society is as patrichal as it used to be.

And if they look at a place like Iran, where it still dominates, current feminist arguments look pretty weak.

What i think is most silly though is that they are telling people that we are born bi-sexual and society forces a gender personality on us depending what sex we are born as.

Where is the proof of this? It just doesnt seem to make sense.

Surely, people are born Straight, gay and Bi.

Society then either allows people to act upon their desires, as in western society or it suppresses them, like in Iran for example.

Gender personality. I really dont understand that. is it saying that society helps form what gender your personality reflects?

This all just seems like somthing that is not verifiable.

Im not necessarily against it, just want some examples.

[redstar2000]

The rise of Christian Fascism in the U.S. does leave women in a "state of siege" here whether they are aware of it or not.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham@Jun 7 2006, 07:17 AM


What i think is most silly though is that they are telling people that we are born bi-sexual and society forces a gender personality on us depending what sex we are born as.

Where is the proof of this? It just doesnt seem to make sense.

Surely, people are born Straight, gay and Bi.

Society then either allows people to act upon their desires, as in western society or it suppresses them, like in Iran for example.

I don't see how you can say "surely".

I've not read any conclusive evidence either way.

I could just as easily say "Surely environment helps form what peoples sexual desires are".

Gender personality. I really dont understand that. is it saying that society helps form what gender your personality reflects?

This all just seems like somthing that is not verifiable.

Im not necessarily against it, just want some examples.

I'm not 100 percent certain what is meant by gender personality....but if its something like "Women are more docile then men" or something like that, I'd say that there is certainly examples of this, all around.

I don't think these personalities are inate of course, but, they are there.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I don't see how you can say "surely".

I've not read any conclusive evidence either way.

Well im not saying its for definate or anything.

But almost everyone of my gay friends say they were born gay.

Surely environment helps form what peoples sexual desires are

Yeah i know what you mean. But 'gay' is really nothing more than a preference for sexual relations with the same sex as you.

There are some animals who are gay, yet it would sound weird to say "Surely environment helps form what a sheeps sexual desires are"

What i think they are on about, is whether someone is 'camp' or 'macho' to use poorly defined terms. (or in between)

Straight people can be both 'camp' and 'macho' as can gay people be both 'camp' and 'macho'.

I think environment might very well help determine if a person is camp/macho but not gay/straight.

[TC]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Jun 7 2006, 03:48 PM
The rise of Christian Fascism in the U.S. does leave women in a "state of siege" here whether they are aware of it or not.

Thats true but its a rather pathetic "siege" when it comes to privileged, affluent women; the christian right can only hurt young and poor women. The section of the book i copied is taking issue with the claims on the part of *very* privileged affluent women that they're being oppressed, and its problematic because it incorrectly assumes oppression can occur along gendered lines irrespective of class. The fact is that rural male christian assholes are extremely misogynistic and they apply that to their politics, however their ability to enforce their sexism is limited by their class and material conditions, so it is only capable of oppressing women who are less powerful than themselves (specifically, rural religious women, young women, and poor women).

[Severian]

Wow! Christina Hoff Sommers being favorably quoted by a non-restricted member of this board. I wish I could say I was suprised.

(I'm certainly not suprised to see Tragic Clown, who's one of those ernestoguevara.com quasi-rightists, doing so.)

Let's be clear: Sommers is a pseudo-feminist ideologist of the right-wing backlash against feminism.

She denies that women are under siege because she's opposed to fighting against sexism. It's that simple.

A First Wave, “mainstream,” or “equity” feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, without discrimination

Rush LImbaugh would agree! Treat everyone the same. Down with all that affirmative action "reverse discrimination." And down with the fight against sexism - which necessarily requires the recognition that men and women are socially different, and the organization of women, first and foremost, in the fight against it.

From Z Magazine's review of Sommers' book:
Perhaps the greatest irony is that Sommers's idol Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared in her 1854 speech to the New York Legislature (which Sommers quotes as a model of equity feminism): "By the common law of England, the spirit of which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our statute law, a husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod not larger than his thumb, to shut her up in a room, and administer whatever moderate chastisement he may deem necessary to insure obedience to his wishes, and for her healthful moral development!"

If Sommers's equity feminist idol repudiates her utopian view of the law, it shows how inaccurate Sommers's discussions of the "rule of thumb" and the history of "pure and wholesome" feminism are. Feminists have always sought radical changes to improve the treatment of women. Feminists have always questioned the status quo which permits women to be harassed and abused while the problems are denied. And feminists have always been accused of being male-haters, of being too radical, and of conspiring to control America.

Who Stole Feminism ?is a deeply flawed book--not because it "dares" to challenge the feminist "orthodoxy," but because it distorts scholarly research and feminist views in order to tear down a straw person called "gender feminism."

And it is Sommers and her conservative allies, not "gender feminists," who seek to suppress dissenters. In a 1991 letter to the American Philosophical Association Proceedings, Sommers complained that feminist philosophers "transgress the norms of intellectual exchange" and accused them of "the attempt to suppress my minority standpoint." As one example, Sommers cited Sandra Lee Bartky, a University of Illinois at Chicago philosopher who wrote a private letter to the editor of the Atlantic, urging that a better reporter about feminism than Sommers be used for a story and (in a second letter) suggesting a debate between the two sides take place in the Atlantic's pages.

But when Sommers led a campaign in the media against the New York Times'choice of Nina Auerbach to write a review about Sommers's book, no one called this censorship. On the contrary, writers like Jim Sleeper, Hilton Kramer (a "deliberate attempt to annihilate an important new book on feminist politics"), and Howard Kurtz ("A Review or Revenge?") accused Auerbach and The New York Times of trying to (in Rush Limbaugh's words) "kill this book." Sommers claimed that Auerbach had "recognized" herself in the book and used the review to "settle scores," accusing Auerbach of "professional malfeasance" for her review.

But as Auerbach notes, "there was never anything self-serving about my hatred of this book." Auerbach never recognized herself in the book or wrote the review out of revenge. Rebecca Sinkler, editor of the Times Book Review, points out that Auerbach was chosen because "Auerbach is known as a contrarian, and a critic of academic feminism in its sillier manifestations"--and Auerbach's own review concluded that Sommers could have made a believable "charge of thought-policing" if she had examined the anti-pornography movement.

For writing a negative review, Auerbach was attacked by Sommers and vilified by conservatives across the country even though (as Sinkler observes) "No one who has charged her with bias has found anything inaccurate in her review."
Read the rest of the review.

It also points out that Sommers frequently misrepresents facts and numbers, as well as the views of the feminists she attacks.

[Severian]

Originally posted by TragicClown+Jun 8 2006, 12:47 AM--> (TragicClown @ Jun 8 2006, 12:47 AM)

redstar2000

@Jun 7 2006, 03:48 PM
The rise of Christian Fascism in the U.S. does leave women in a "state of siege" here whether they are aware of it or not.

Thats true but its a rather pathetic "siege" when it comes to privileged, affluent women; the christian right can only hurt young and poor women. The section of the book i copied is taking issue with the claims on the part of *very* privileged affluent women that they're being oppressed, [/b]

Nonsense. Sommers writes "For someone like me, who does not believe that American women are in a state of siege "

She doesn't say that applies only to privileged women, or anything like that.

There is a bit of demagogy against the privileges of feminist academics - but that's common on the right, they're always going on about the "liberal elites" and their Volvos and $5 lattes. It doesn't represent any real critique of class privilege.

"and its problematic because it incorrectly assumes oppression can occur along gendered lines irrespective of class."

Again, nonsense. No feminist I've ever met or read thinks that, not even the Dworkinites let alone Steinem. Sommers - and you - are attacking a straw woman.

But Sommers argues that oppression does not occur anymore along gendered lines - after all, women are legally equal nowadays. You seem to agree without coming out and saying so - at least you speak as if it doesn't occur.

The truth is, a Black working-class women is not only exploited as a worker and oppressed as a Black person, she is also oppressed as a woman.

And a privileged academic woman is not only privileged as an upper-middle-class person, she is also oppressed as a woman. For example, she is likely to have more trouble getting tenure, publications, and promotions than a man of equivalent class privilege. And that's just on the economic side; there are numerous other ways sexism operates.

It comes down much harder on less privileged women, of course.

But oppression along gender lines does happen, which necessarily implies it affects all women to some degree.

The fact is that rural male christian assholes

And there ya go, the source of sexist oppression is country bumpkins, not the ruling class in Washington and Wall Street. Oy. Implies denial of systematic oppression as well as middle-class feelings of superiority to "rednecks".

[TC]

Severian writes

Wow! Christina Hoff Sommers being favorably quoted by a non-restricted member of this board. I wish I could say I was suprised.

Uh, i wasn't "quoting her favourably" like i said at the begining of my first post i'm not endorsing her position i just thought that it would start a good topic.

Let's be clear: Sommers is a pseudo-feminist ideologist of the right-wing backlash against feminism.

She's a liberal feminist reacting to what she feels are radical feminists hijacking her movement. Since i'm a marxist and not a liberal or a radical feminist i'm not ideologically partisan to either her position or the positions she's criticizing.

She denies that women are under siege because she's opposed to fighting against sexism. It's that simple.

No, she's not opposed to fighting sexism, she's opposed to to fighting sexism from a seperatist perspective rather than an equity perspective.

Rush LImbaugh would agree! Treat everyone the same.

No he wouldn't. Rightwing conservatives are sexists they want "traditional" and unequal roles for men and women. Your comment is really quite absurd, their issues is with mainstream feminism of the type that Hoff supports.

Nonsense. Sommers writes "For someone like me, who does not believe that American women are in a state of siege "

She doesn't say that applies only to privileged women, or anything like that.

First of all, *I'm* talking about privileged women only, and the reason why i thought the article was passage was interesting was because it quoted some *very* privileged women.

"and its problematic because it incorrectly assumes oppression can occur along gendered lines irrespective of class."

Again, nonsense. No feminist I've ever met or read thinks that, not even the Dworkinites let alone Steinem. Sommers - and you - are attacking a straw woman.

Clearly you've not read much radical feminism then. Even on this forum i've heard people make the claim that an upper class woman is more oppressed than a lower class man, something that is just not empirically true.

But Sommers argues that oppression does not occur anymore along gendered lines - after all, women are legally equal nowadays. You seem to agree without coming out and saying so - at least you speak as if it doesn't occur.

No i don't agree and i never implied that. Inequality doesn't require legal inequality because inequal power relations are based on the material, economic conditions fundementally, and this economic inequality with respect to gender continues to exist among large populations of women...rural christian women who are probably the most vulnerable to reactionary christian sexism do not have the same economic power as rural (lower class) men. Likewise young women have virtually no economic power so they're especially vulnerable to sexism and in fact nearly every directly sexist law targets them, because unlike the powerful women at the conference described above, they can't do anything about it.

The truth is, a Black working-class women is not only exploited as a worker and oppressed as a Black person, she is also oppressed as a woman

Of course because they have less money than black working class men, any Marxist would assume they'd be oppressed...Hoff is if you haven't noticed, a liberal not a marxist; i've never said i agree with her positon.

And a privileged academic woman is not only privileged as an upper-middle-class person, she is also oppressed as a woman. For example, she is likely to have more trouble getting tenure, publications, and promotions than a man of equivalent class privilege. And that's just on the economic side; there are numerous other ways sexism operates.

Upper-middle-class women without children are a special case because, unlike other women (including upper class women), they both have an income equivolent to their male counter-parts and they have enough economic clout that its more costly to alienate them then it is to alienate the comparatively poor crazy sexist christian guys. Thats why the christian rightists go after poor women, young women, mothers, black women, etc instead, they go after people who are vulnerable enough for the to successfully impose their sexist attitudes on.

And there ya go, the source of sexist oppression is country bumpkins, not the ruling class in Washington and Wall Street. Oy. Implies denial of systematic oppression as well as middle-class feelings of superiority to "rednecks".

No, like i said, oppression follows class and economic lines. However if you haven't noticed, the ruling class in washington needs the rural christians to vote it into office, so it has to appease their sexism by implementing oppression. Almost every urban area in the United States votes democrat in national elections, even southern cities, and the vast majority of rural counties vote republican.

If the ruling class wasn't interested in using the lower classes prejudices to divide each other, then they wouldn't try to cultivate sexism and racism and homophobia. They do so because it keeps them in power in the liberal "democratic" system...because if you haven't noticed, the ruling class itself isn't numerious enough to form a meaningful voting bloc.

[Severian]

Originally posted by TragicClown@Jun 8 2006, 06:03 AM
Uh, i wasn't "quoting her favourably" like i said at the begining of my first post i'm not endorsing her position i just thought that it would start a good topic.

You actually said: "I don't agree with maybe everything that Christina Hoff says". Hardly a statement that you disagree with her overall. And you said you thought it was "neat."

She's a liberal feminist reacting to what she feels are radical feminists hijacking her movement.

Bullshit. Steinem and the others are liberals; Sommers is a darling of the National Review and the right generally, the female equivalent of Ward Connerly. The right has no trouble seeing through Sommers' "feminist" facade; neither does anyone else with a clue about politics.

And that you give 5 seconds credence to Sommers feeling Steinem et al are "radical" implies that you think they are radical, too; i.e. that you are opposing these liberals from the right.

No, she's not opposed to fighting sexism, she's opposed to to fighting sexism from a seperatist perspective rather than an equity perspective.

How do you fight sexism from an equity perspective when, she says, women already have equity? And women do have legalequity.

From the "equity perspective" the fight against women's oppression is over; now comes the fight against "reverse discrimination", i.e. affirmative action...in her latest book, "the war against boys", Sommers argues it's in fact boys who are discriminated against in schools...and argues for affirmative action...for men. I.E. sexist discrimination.

Your defense of Sommers here dispels your earlier claim to be just trying to start a discussion.

No he wouldn't. Rightwing conservatives are sexists they want "traditional" and unequal roles for men and women. Your comment is really quite absurd, their issues is with mainstream feminism of the type that Hoff supports.

You really don't know anything about politics, do you? In fact, Sommers has been roundly praised by the entire right, I could link a dozen articles from the National Review praising her. And the right does not openly defend inequality - they oppose affirmative action in the name of non-discrimination and Martin Luther King's dream of judging everyone by the content of their character.

The only point of disagreement is that Sommers claims to be pro-choice.

Clearly you've not read much radical feminism then.

On the contrary, I have, especially if you consider the likes of Steinem radical.

Have you? But that doesn't matter; if you did read it I'm sure you wouldn't understand it. I've never known you to understand a single political concept; I'm sure you won't understand anything I'm posting here either. Or, heck, even what you post yourself.

Even on this forum i've heard people make the claim that an upper class woman is more oppressed than a lower class man, something that is just not empirically true.

Supposing that someone did make this statement, they obviously aren't claiming that gender oppression occurs "irrespective of class" as you put it earlier. They're expressing an opinion about the relative weight of two kinds of oppression.

In a muddled way: class is about exploitation, not oppression. In that sense, the statement is literally true...but completely meaningless politically. "Who's more oppressed" has always been a pointless argument anyway.

Inequality doesn't require legal inequality because inequal power relations are based on the material, economic conditions fundementally, and this economic inequality with respect to gender continues to exist among large populations of women...rural christian women who are probably the most vulnerable to reactionary christian sexism do not have the same economic power as rural (lower class) men. Likewise young women have virtually no economic power so they're especially vulnerable to sexism and in fact nearly every directly sexist law targets them, because unlike the powerful women at the conference described above, they can't do anything about it.

Economism. Sexism and other kinds of oppression operate in many ways, not just economically.

And I note that you admit the existence of sexism only about particular populations of rural and young women, not even about the vast majority of women who are working people, not privileged in class terms.

In other words, I called your politics fundamentally right, and you're just emphasizing exceptions.

Of course because they have less money than black working class men, any Marxist would assume they'd be oppressed.

Again, economism. Admits only financial exploitation, not the sexist oppression.

Which operates in many ways, including through the family structure. If you read Engels' Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, he emphasizes the patriarchal family, not just unequal wages, as the root of women's oppression.

In that, Engels had more in common with the "gender feminists" than with you and Sommers.

Upper-middle-class women without children are a special case

Then why are you emphasizing the special case?

Anyway, it's factually untrue they have an equivalent income; even female executives earn less than male executives. And you've ignored my point that oppression operates in numerous other ways.

To give a really dramatic example, consider a wealthy sports star pulled over and beaten by police for "driving while Black." His class privilege will help him in court; but it doesn't erase systematic racist oppression in the criminal justice system.

Thats why the christian rightists go after poor women, young women, mothers, black women, etc instead, they go after people who are vulnerable enough for the to successfully impose their sexist attitudes on.

Remember Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown? On the contrary, rightist demagogy often targets the "liberal elites". The effect is felt mostly by working-class women, certainly. But the right and especially the ultraright portray themselves as champions of the "little people" against the "liberal elite". As Sommers, with your applause, is doing here.

No, like i said, oppression follows class and economic lines. However if you haven't noticed, the ruling class in washington needs the rural christians to vote it into office, so it has to appease their sexism by implementing oppression. Almost every urban area in the United States votes democrat in national elections, even southern cities, and the vast majority of rural counties vote republican.

What? So the ruling class is synonymous with Republicans? Only the Republicans are sexist? On the contrary, both parties are ruling class, and both perpetuate the systematic second-class status of women.

I called it right again, and you're just nitpicking again.

"so it has to appease their sexism by implementing oppression. " So the ruling class is not sexist inherently, it's just appeasing those "rural christians" who are the real source of sexism.

You're leaving out the suburbs, incidentally. And the fact that most working people don't vote. But that's a minor side point.

"No, like i said, oppression follows class and economic lines."

No, exploitation follows class lines. Oppression follows lines of race, sex, etc: and you're denying its existence just as Limbaugh and Sommers do.

If the ruling class wasn't interested in using the lower classes prejudices to divide each other, then they wouldn't try to cultivate sexism and racism and homophobia.

That's the first time you've mentioned that the ruling class does cultivate those things. It's an afterthought you use to cover yourself under fire, not the basis for your real thinking.

And of course the need for those divisions is not primarily electoral; it has to do with derailing the mass struggles of working people. And it doesn't just operate in rural areas; it's fundamental to the nature of capitalism.

Everything in your post is just semantic quibbles and exceptions aimed at covering up the politics which I fundamentally described accurately. Dodge and weave, dodge and weave.