So we generally agree that equality should, at a minimum, include:
[T]hat each person be free to choose what they believe is best for themselves, knowing that they will always have the resources they need to survive and that no one will have access to a quality of life that far outstrips their own.
Ahem…let me rephrase:
One of the critical components of equality is That each person be free to choose what they believe is best for themselves.
So when someone says:
Women shouldn’t breastfeed in public.
[Every conversation about breastfeeding, ever.]
Or says:
“Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.”
[Elizabeth Wurtzel, The Atlantic]
Or says:
Women shouldn’t do [X sexual practice]!
[Every conversation about sex in the feminist blogosphere, ever.]
Or even says:
That we should “bar the use of food stamps to buy beverages that contain more sugar than substance — that is, beverages with low nutritional value that contain more than 10 calories per eight-ounce serving”
[Thomas Farley and Richard Daines, New York Times]
That is not supporting equality.
And that is what “Choice Feminism” is about. Not about “conning women” into accepting existing social norms. Not about disregarding the inequalities that exist in our system. Not about selfishly ignoring others so that we can do our own thing. But acknowledging that an equal society is one in which we do not restrict people’s choices simply because we disagree with them.
Certainly, Choice Feminism is not the end of the fight for equality. We have to ensure each person has the resources to make meaningful choices about their lives. But we can’t achieve our ultimate goal without respecting everyone’s freedom to choose.
I quite like your definition as a rule for a good society, but I am not sure it is just a definition of “equality”. I do not think that individual freedom and equality are the same thing.
It does not literally work as an absolute rule either, since it does not include necessary limits to individual freedom (to start with, that you are not allowed to harm someone else).
The breastfeeding argument for example, depends on what is seen as acceptable public behavior. Society today do not accept public nudity which is the starting point for the counter argument.
All that being said, I agree with you in all the particular examples/conclusions. I am just no sure about the general theoretical framework…
I absolutely love this blog post series, but I think you should have waited a little longer until posting this one.
They aren’t, but equality of opportunity and liberty are inextricably tied. You can’t have one without the other. But I do agree that the OP should have made it clear that maximum liberty doesn’t imply the “right” to oppress others.
Alas, today is my last day…so there was no more time to post this one.
I don’t know, I haven’t been following this whole discussion, but the problem is that Choice Feminism is trotted out not only against restrictions on choice but even criticism of choice. Unless you think that no one can ever make a stupid decision worthy of criticism, that can’t be right. The problem is more practical than that; usually those doing the criticism have less information about the person’s life situation and perspective than the person themselves, so the critic must tread very, very carefully to avoid making themselves a fool.
Also I think we should be wary of conflating an idea equal world with the world we’re living in. Just because in an ideal, equal world, everyone’s choice would reflect their pure pursuit of happiness and self-fulfillment without complication, that’s not how choices are reflected in the real world. Take the woman who doesn’t report sexual abuse or worse out of fear the authorities won’t take it seriously and there will be retribution. Is it a valid choice? Certainly. Should the conversation be shut down with the answer to that question? No fucking way.
@Tony: I agree.
Saying that you can not criticize the choices people make because everyone should have free choice is as nonsensical as saying that you can not criticize what people say because we should have free speech.
I do not think this would be different in an ideal equal world. As long as humans are imperfect they will make unwise choices worthy of criticism.
Tony, I don’t think that Kristen is saying that choice should be immune from criticism but rather that they should not be restricted so long as they don’t cause any harm to others. However, I think it will be very helpful if she clarifies what she means by “disagree.”
an equal society is one in which we do not restrict people’s choices simply because we disagree with them
Should I work to get everyone a living wage, thus restricting the employers’ choice to pay less than a living wage, or should I leave things be, thus restricting the employees’ choices to much of anything?
By “disagree” I mean that you think their choices are “stupid” or “anti-feminist”. As I mentioned last time, it should go without saying that choice is appropriately limited by the harms principle…but of course it never does go without saying.
If everyone receives resources such that they can live without your “living wage” then I don’t think it will be much of a problem. The reason we work towards a living wage is because our current resource allocation means that some people do not have a meaningful choice between low wage jobs and jobs that pay a living wage.
So, I think this is all correct, but I think we need to problematize ‘Pure’ choice feminism a little bit. I can think of three elements that we need to add to your discussion.
First, any plausible view of autonomy is going to set conditions on when consent and choice are morally meaningful. For example, if a highwayman comes up and says, “Your money or your life” and I give the person the money, there is a SENSE in which I give the money voluntarily (after all, I handed it to her). But we would say that your choice to give the money was coerced or that you had no choice at all (which really mean the same thing, I would think). In other words, characterizing a voluntary act of the will as a morally meaningful ‘choice’ is to already assume a set of background conditions that make the free expression of one’s will possible.
So, ‘choice feminism’ does not escape the following theoretical requirement: describing the conditions under which, say, voluntary actions represent REAL choices.
Second, our social worlds are established by the choices of others. Take a simple example: the cultural norm of wives taking the husband’s last name. I think it obvious that this norm has problematic expressivist content, but any woman making that choice is in a hard position. For each individual woman, they materially benefit from taking their husband’s name (believe me, keeping your name causes a ton of logistical hassles) but then the norm isn’t undermined. The more women who keep their name, the less costly over the long run it is becomes to keep it (bureaucracies deal with common issues far more easily than uncommon ones). So, the social environment offer women a rough choice: either keep your name in order to undermine a problematic norm and face a lifetime of hassle, or avoid the hassle but impose a cost on other woman by upholding the norm. Now, let me be clear. I don’t think that women who chose either horn of the dilemma should be morally criticized, but we should be aware that OUR choices about what is best for US influence the social environment and have an effect on OTHERS. (Of course, the real injustice is the broader social norm which is mostly established by the decisions where women are systematically underrepresented, marginalized, and excluded, I don’t want to deny that)
Third, I think resources are a good start, but I am not sure they are adequate. On the Rawls-Anderson view, you need sufficient income and wealth ‘to make intelligent use of your freedoms’ but you also need a basic structure that provides for equal basic liberties in order to combat exploitation and domination as well as provide for the social bases of self-respect. Having sufficient resources will be insufficient if a person lacks those other elements. I doubt you disagree, so consider this a friendly amendment.
Is “no one will have access to a quality of life that far outstrips their own” not in conflict with “[T]hat each person be free to choose what they believe is best for themselves”?
I don’t think so. But my perspective is based on the idea that no person is entitled to the resources they currently have. So if your question is whether resource distribution is somehow abrogating choice, then I argue that it doesn’t because those aren’t your resources.
“no person is entitled to the resources they currently have”
Can you elaborate? Why isn’t a person entitled to own what they’ve earnt?
I’m honestly surprised that you haven’t said that you’re a libertarian socialist.
I am not quite sure I follow the jump from the last post where you seemed to be arguing that equality demanded that we meet needs to the conclusion of this one where you seem to prioritize freedom of choice over equitable (not equal) distribution of resources. In other words, in the last post, you seemed to be prioritizing “freedom to” where society is structured to maximize the ability of everyone to achieve and in this one you seem to prioritize “freedom from” where there are minimal (formal, legal) restrictions on individual choices.
To me this is a false dichotomy. First because our history is replete with examples of empty legal rights — there was no formal legal restriction on the ability to exercise it but the inequity of condition made it difficult to impossible to do. Yes, you can make the argument that when you focus on maximizing choice, it requires that the choice be meaningful but then you are back at requiring some degree of equity of condition. In other words, you cannot have one without the other.
The second part is that living in a community necessarily restricts some individual choice because exercising it infringes on others’ freedom. But that necessitates determining the relative value or importance of different freedoms. Simplistic, but it has been decided in many communities that your right to freedom from noise after 11pm is greater than my right to do otherwise legal but noisy activities after 11pm. So that leads to the questions of who decides the relative values?
I think perhaps I didn’t explain it well then. I think *both* are required. And I think or the most part we (people in the feminist) blogosphere that more equitable resource distribution, but we also engage in a lot of shaming of choices that we don’t deem to be appropriate – whether that choice is to drink a ginormous soda or to give birth at home or to stay at home with your kids. There seems to be this impression that if people would just confirm to a feminist ideal then oppression would disappear and we’d all be equal. This last post was challenging that idea and hopefully convincing people that equality requires respect for choice as well as resource equality.
Earned is such a loaded word. It presupposes that our current allocation of resources. No one “creates” anything without input from others and yet very often in a capitalist only certain people “earn” anything from the collective efforts or from our collective resources (like fresh air, water, etc.)
“Earned is such a loaded word. ”
If I am an artist, and take a stone from my back yard, sculpt it, and sell it, then have I committed some wrongdoing? If I’ve not earned the money, then what have I done? If I am not entitled to the money I’ve received from that exchange, then who is?
I don’t mean to sound combative, I’m just interested in where you’re going with the idea.
If you take stone from your back yard then you have taken stone from our collective resources (the earth). In all likelihood you used tools probably made by others, sustaining yourself on food grown by others.
You don’t sound combative at all! I’m happy that you’re questioning. I am not the all knowing wise one. I’m just a person with some ideas just like you.
So I shouldn’t have used the stone? Or is it that I shouldn’t have made the exchange? It sounds like you’re identifying a problem with the scenario, but I’m not sure where that problem lies, exactly.
You are restricting people’s choices just because you disagree with them, though. You are just hiding that behind the no harm to others principle just like its being done currently to restrict various oppressed groups.
I suppose you could offer the defense that you are right about what is harmful to others?
Didn’t you also basically require that able bodied persons perform work?
Also how are you going to deal with the explosion of the entertainment, arts and leisure industries?
How many people would want to be artists or do other creative tasks if they didn’t have to do work to make a living?
The problem would be attributing the value received in exchange for the piece of art to the artist alone as opposed to the community that owns the resources and the other members of the community that contributed to the well-being of the artist who made the art.
?? This makes no sense to me. What do you mean?
How so?
Probably a lot. I’m not sure why that would be a problem? Are you arguing that no one would do anything productive if we didn’t live in a capitalistic system?
“The problem would be attributing the value received in exchange for the piece of art to the artist alone as opposed to the community that owns the resources and the other members of the community that contributed to the well-being of the artist who made the art.”
If I bought my tools from a toolmaker, and paid for my food, etc., then isn’t that enough recompense to the community? If not, then how much redistribution back to the community would be required to make the transaction ethical, then?
IF you could identify and quantify every member of the community’s contribution that would only resolve the “effort” of others part of the equation. The artist still used collective resources, the stone, the air, the water, the other natural resources used in the tools etc. The artist would have to recompense everyone along the chain.
Doesn’t this mean someone has to police the redistribution to make sure exchanges are conforming? What if I think that the toolmaker deserves more because I’ve used more of his work and someone else doesn’t and thinks they’re more deserving?
Who gets the money for the natural resources?
That’s why I think policing exchanges makes no sense. Instead we redistribute all income/good so that everyone begins with a basic basket of goods. If people wish to trade or exchange or combine resources with their own labor after that then awesome. But if you do produce something you will have to share it (or the benefits of it) with others.
“But if you do produce something you will have to share it (or the benefits of it) with others.”
I don’t follow. If policing exchanges makes no sense, then how do you know the sharing is equitable?
@z:
Have you ever been frustrated by conversations which go something like this?
you: It’s obscene that the average CEO earns more than 200 times that of the average worker in their company.
other person: Well they deserve it!
you: how so?
other person: they work hard! they’re successful!
you: they work 200 times harder than the worker?
I think that is the problem with the “They earned it” argument. Who decided that the CEO contributed 200 times more to the success of the company than the worker? We have a structure in place that asks us to accept this unquestioningly, and for the most part, we do. I think in Kristen J’s world our definition of “earn” would make this inequity impossible.
@Kirsten J, I agree with you on this:
The word “deserved” was verboten when I was growing up and (I am fascinated by how the language we use shapes how/what we think as much as the reverse). While the other, more standard prohibited words have long since lost their shock quality, I still cringe when I hear “deserve” as an adult.
But @z, arguing for equitable distribution of resources does not necessarily require the total elimination of commerce. Money, though the root of all evil, it a very useful and efficient medium for signalling and distributing resources. In the context of maximizing choice, it is about the only medium we have.
What is required is a commitment to and a system that maintains an equitable distribution. This means starting with a basic basket of goods and then keeping naturally occurring inequalities (intelligence, ability, beauty, etc.) from compounding into large inequalities* through ongoing redistribution. That would include making sure that everyone up the line in the production of said sculpture was adequately compensated directly or indirectly. The goal of the compensation would be to allow you to (continue) to do what you wanted rather than facilitate the accumulation of wealth.
This is complementary to some of the parallel development in the environmental economics literature. One of the not so radical arguments is that we can shift to a service (not service-sector) economy where the goal is that start with the services we need and want (hot shower, cold beer) rather than the status of consumption. It frees us to pursue those services we value in the most environmentally friendly/equitable way we can.
*Computer simulations show that even with equal endowments (not only is wealth spread equally but the agents are of equal ability), without some ongoing mechanism to maintain a (nearly) flat distribution, over time disparity in wealth and income develop and grow to gross proportions because the exchanges create small disparities and small advantages build on each other.
“But @z, arguing for equitable distribution of resources does not necessarily require the total elimination of commerce.”
I’m not saying it requires it either. What I’m trying to put my finger on is that “equitable distribution” can mean something to one person and a different thing to another. Sure, we could collectively determine what is “equitable”, but some people are bound to disagree and — exercise their own choices on what they think people are due. Maybe those who disagree can go off and form their own societies where they can find like-minded people who agree on what is equitable. That sounds workable.
It feels like the way we deal with things in a social sense: the free exercise of choices as discussed — has ramifications for what the economics of a society built on the free exercise of choices are. This is what I mean by saying originally “no one will have access to a quality of life that far outstrips their own” is conflicting in some sense with the free exercise of choices.
What level of disparity is acceptable under this system – is there room under it for luxuries? What happens if some people opt for transient luxuries while others opt for more permanent ones, are those opting for less transient experiences later punished by a redistribution because they have something that others don’t?
It seems a good idea in theory and capping / minimum liveable wage / price restrictions would likely work however the reality seems to end up quite depressing. Where is the incentive to go above and beyond, to make use of that talent if you do not achieve a reward?
While I’m uncomfortable speaking to the rest, I have done a lot of study about SNAP, otherwise known as food stamps.
SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It is not a cash assistance program, but offers financial support that is limited in many ways (no non-food, no alcohol, no ready-made food like sandwiches.) It is often confused in this purpose with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) which is a cash assistance program.
The secondary purpose of SNAP is to ensure support of the American food production system – unfortunately for good nutrition, we produce an awful lot of HFCS. Everyone from the farmers growing corn to the corn refiners to the actual soda companies are dead-set against removing what are called FMNV (Foods of minimal nutritional value) from eligibility for SNAP. Much of the pro-soda rhetoric you’re reading comes from giant corporations who are more than happy to capitalize on the idea of “freedom of choice,” as they place advertisements in every square inch of our lives.
I believe there is a correlation between the lack of access to healthy food in poor neighborhoods and the fact that a liquor store can be eligible to accept SNAP dollars as long as they offer soda and certain candy bars.
So, no – not down with the idea that keeping soda out of a program that’s intended to support nutrition is an issue use to frame this discussion.
Kristen, you could have saved an awful lot of time by just saying you supported equality of outcome.
Except I don’t.
Seriously? Have you ever been on SNAP or Food Stamps? Because that is an incredibly classist, fucked up thing to say.
If you really think about it, this doesn’t make sense. Do you only do the things you do because you get a reward? How much of a reward? Do you only do things because you receive a disproportionately large reward as compared to everyone else in the world? Would you do something for the resources required for a comfortable if not lavish life?
I think this is a myth of the capitalist system belied by the fact that most of us do tons of things for no money (including blogging!)
You just outlined a system that is almost identical to equality of outcome:
“Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a controversial political concept.[1] Although it is not always clearly defined, it usually describes a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth or, more generally, in which the general economic conditions of their lives are similar. Achieving this requires reducing or eliminating material inequalities between individuals or households in a society. This could involve a transfer of income and/or wealth from wealthier to poorer individuals, or adopting other institutions designed to promote equality of condition from the start. The concept is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. A related way of defining equality of outcome is to think of it as “equality in the central and valuable things in life.”"
“A society in which the general economic conditions of their lives are similar.”
“No one will have access to a quality of life that far outstrips their own.”
Come on now. How is that not pretty much the same?
Kirsten J,
what you seem to be implying is that this “equality” you propose would be enforced. In essence, as a policed equality, no matter how much I worked, I would have to acknowledge everyone who allowed me to work: even if I think i compensated them appropriately, an actual difference in outcome would not be allowed.
So, in essence: All things would not just have to start level, but would have to be forcibly leveled as time passed.
Differential reward is therefore to be prevented. Surpluses of all things, no matter who they come from, must be equally distributed.
Again, this is a nice idea, but wrong species. In fact, I don’t know of a species of actual living animal this would work with.
Oh – in that, humans don’t do this kind of thing. We work for reward, and are relentlessly status-conscious, creating status hierarchies even in our own minds when not interacting with people.
A massive part of our brains are specifically wired to navigate social hierarchies.
Take away the incentive to be better / have more / get that hot date from people, and there’s no real reason to produce a surplus at all.
Or work, beyond the need to immediately feed yourself.
If we were ants, mechanically devoted to the colony’s well-being and without an individuality at all, then that might work.
But Kisten J’s little idea would mean, more or less, unmitigated and total economic ruin and likely mass death and starvation.
Nice idea – not likely to work with anything even approaching huma npsychology.
But I think this is likely just a thought exercise anyway.
However, on feminism and choice–
That article in the Atlantic was apalling, condescending, inflammatory, and patronizing.
if you read the comments, again, it’s clear there are few things more divisive than this nannyish need to tell others what to do, and determine whether something is “acceptably Feminist or not”.
Actually, despite the rancor in the comments to that article, “patronizing” doesn’t even begin to address the Atlantic’s author’s attitude.
More like classist, judgmental and dehumanizing.
How is it classist to say that business owners legally abuse SNAP? Are you saying I’m anti-middle-class?
I do a lot of things because I want to, however doing things I don’t necessarily want to do – say putting in the 50 hour week when needed isn’t something I want to do however my job compensates me to make this ‘choice’. Now if society manages to get by on people doing minimum work and what they want to then that’s great but that seems like a big assumption to make. A lot of people are motivated by the outcome, by the capability to differentiate themselves from other people so how do we motivate them if there is no way to differentiate themselves?
This whole point depends on how large a difference you allow and how large you let it build to. If we say a 100% difference in income and a family can be supported on a single income then we have some nuclear families on an income of 1.0x and others on 4.0x – is this too much inequality, do we restrict the income by family units rather than individuals?
As I said the idea is good but every implementation seems to result in a similar disparity just with smaller numbers.
Exactly this. And, frankly, I, and a ton of people I know, work in jobs where we are already underpaid because we think the work is important or fulfilling in other ways.
Honestly, there are a lot of jobs that nobody would do if only reason people worked was compensation. I don’t know any social workers who make much money. Teachers and librarians and counselors and a variety of other jobs that are important to society that are generally underpaid and overworked, but people still keep signing up to do those jobs even though they could easily make more money doing other jobs. Is compensation important? Of course–I need to pay for the roof over my head and the food in my belly, obviously. But the reward I get for my work isn’t just measured in dollars, and if my living expenses were zero, I think I would still be doing the work, because I think it’s important and I love what I do.
Because “far outstrips their own” does not mean “the same”.
I’m saying that blaming food deserts on poor people eating candy and soda is classist and fucked up.
Then you are taking a classist view, yourself: you assume that because I want foodstamp reform, I must never been poor enough to be eligible for SNAP: you are wrong. You are also framing the discussion about food stamps completely backwards.
I am not blaming the purchasers; I am placing the blame on the STORES. SNAP-eligible stores can choose to sell only shelf-stable, high-margin, heavily-advertised items…junk foods. They rarely stock, for instance, foods on the WIC list (a much better program, IMO.) Since SNAP dollars in the food desert are being spent mostly on FMNVs because there aren’t alternatives, there is a perception that these areas can’t support better stores (a false and, yes, classist perception, but it’s on the part of developers, not me.) Places like liquor and many corner stores are parasites: they take SNAP dollars for junk food (which people buy because there isn’t better food nearby) and by cash for whatever else they sell, and their neighbors have to deal with it because they are a captive audience.
In more affluent communities, these kinds of stores don’t exist – because their customers are wealthy enough to take their money elsewhere if the store isn’t selling what they want, instead of being stuck with what’s best for the store.
I don’t begrudge anyone their personal choices, but I think programs like SNAP need to be re-evaluated to make sure they aren’t exacerbating the problems they set out to address.
But smaller numbers is sort of the point. I don’t mind some people having more than others because they work extra hard or because they take on less desirable jobs. I mind people starving, being denied access to healthcare and proper housing. I mind economic coercion and the inability of vast numbers of people to access education. And I think the question of how much inequality is acceptable can be determined based on a balance of efficiency and equality.
It is an interesting question how large a difference that should be acceptable. If we are talking (like 2ndin above) about the differences being limited to a factor 2, then it would be very close to equality of outcome.
How large differences would you consider equitable?
But isn’t that just about the minimum level and not about relative equality? Ie everyone should have a reasonable minimum quality of life. A very reasonable rule, but it says nothing about how relatively rich the richest in society are.
At least in the UK teachers are not badly paid, a 5 year qualified teacher hits the top of their basic pay scale at £30,000 ish – that’s £4,000 above the median wage and just £3,000 under the median household wage. It is not a great salary however given it generally only requires a bachelors degree and there is room for progression to £90,000 jobs as head teachers etc.
I’m aware that a lot of people do things because they want to and they enjoy doing so however there are also a large number of people who are motivated by money / status so how do you appeal to them with this system? Where do people get the money to take risks setting up the next big thing which has a startup cost, kick starter is great but what if you want to create under water RoVs or explore space…
Even as I said of we restrict the wage gap to 2x between the minimum and maximum we end up with a potential 4x gap in the normal family groupings. That seems like quite a large gap – the difference between a family on the median £33,000 wage and one on £132,000 is huge. What level of inequality will / would you accept as being equal and fair? Should we reward people simply based on age or do we do it on other systems – what is the appropriate remuneration and how do you calculate it in a fair world?
At least in the UK teachers are not badly paid, a 5 year qualified teacher hits the top of their basic pay scale at £30,000 ish – that’s £4,000 above the median wage and just £3,000 under the median household wage. It is not a great salary however given it generally only requires a bachelors degree and there is room for progression to £90,000 jobs as head teachers etc.
I’m aware that a lot of people do things because they want to and they enjoy doing so however there are also a large number of people who are motivated by money / status so how do you appeal to them with this system? Where do people get the money to take risks setting up the next big thing which has a startup cost, kick starter is great but what if you want to create under water RoVs or explore space…
Even as I said of we restrict the wage gap to 2x between the minimum and maximum we end up with a potential 4x gap in the normal family groupings. That seems like quite a large gap – the difference between a family on the median £33,000 wage and one on £132,000 is huge. What level of inequality will / would you accept as being equal and fair? Should we reward people simply based on age or do we do it on other systems – what is the appropriate remuneration and how do you calculate it in a fair world?
@mh,
And yet the people whose actions you propose to limit are the poor. You aren’t suggesting that all stores be required to carry fruit and veg, instead you say the solution is to limit the choices of the poor. Whatever your words, your solution places blame on the poor.
Actually, I AM suggesting that stores that accept SNAP dollars be required to carry nutritious food.
However, separately, I am also saying that programs should live up to their intended purpose. The alternative (not an unreasonable one) is to get rid of SNAP entirely and offer only cash benefits via TANF. I am in no way suggesting that poor people not buy soda and chips, just that a federally-funded nutrition program should offer nutrition, and not pander to corporations that are trying to get rid of a surplus of crap via our nation’s poor.
But, you know, thanks for the blanket assumptions and name-calling.
I don’t think so. Think about the things that you consider to be the minimum level. Were those things available 20 years ago? What new things will be available in 50 years? As the overall wealth of a society increases, every member should be able to benefit.
As I said, I don’t know. I couldn’t put a figure on it. I know we’re not their yet. I know a society can easily tolerate a gini coefficient that is half the size of our own without everyone sitting at home doing nothing.
@mh,
And yet you began this conversation by saying that refusing to allow food stamps to be used for soda should be an option on the table. So…thanks for adding to the classist shit people (including me!) have experienced.
So, Kristin – your basic argument here is “don’t nobody tell me what to do.” And you’re willing to plug up your ears and sing, and sink your teeth into anybody who has an idea that’s in conflict with that idea, especially if you make the assumption – without any basis in fact – that the person you’re talking to is more privileged than you are.
Does it matter to you that human beings can’t successfully live as a community if we all hold that principle? That, with your mindset, somebody has to accept less? That that is exactly what the problem is with white privilege; a misuse of power and an unwillingness to accept ideas in conflict with their own?
It isn’t classist for me to say that a nutrition program shouldn’t offer non-nutritious foods. YOU are the one who keeps saying that I want to stop people of limited means from having soda and chips – I don’t.
Charming use of poor grammar. That really supports your point that you aren’t being classist. My “basic” idea here is that you shouldn’t work to limit individual choices that aren’t harmful to third parties, you should work to expand everyone’s choices.
To which you responded:
You objected to the notion of expanded choice with the objection that no,no, we do need to keep soda out of the hands of poor people. It doesn’t really matter if you are also poor, poor people can internalize classism just as much as women can internalize misogyny. And this point, right here, is classist.
So, what’s clearest to me in this discussion is that you have decided not to listen. I just went and re-read everything I wrote in case I missed something or misspoke somewhere. Nowhere did I say that I wanted to keep soda out of the hands of poor people, in fact, several times I said that people’s choices were their own.
What I did, and have said, repeatedly, is that SNAP is a NUTRITION program, and as such, should not provide non-nutritious food. I also said that if we don’t want a program whose purpose is to promote nutrition, but instead want to allow people to buy what they want, one viable option is to eliminate SNAP entirely and increase TANF, which is a cash assistance program.
But if you want to stick with TAKING SODA = MEAN BAD as your response, OK then. Your point is made.