Came across an old thread where someone was claiming this but it sounds ridiculous to me. Some of the examples the commenter (who said they researched womens sexual liberation and obtained a degree in history) gave were:
>Gave them a platform essentially
>Normalized sexy pics/underwear modeling
>Discouraged men from shaming women who express their sexuality
>Women begged to be featured in playboy after it took off Still do, it’s an honor to many women and they fight for it
>He invented a career path for many women
The author continues, "This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office."
"Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women's studies programs on campus."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO_Paranoia.html
The first women's studies course was founded by a woman (Sally Miller Gearhart) who literally believed that males should be reduced to ten percent of the population. Yeaaaaah, I don't think that would have turned out quite like she imagined.
I came across this essay while reading a piece by rich British feminist Laurie Penny after her attending Occupy Wall Street.
She deigned to sit in on a panel and was shocked to observe that all three people on the panel were white males. Refusing to let this injustice go unchecked, she stood up and castigated all three men. It was an act of righteousness on par with Natalie Portman's condemnation of the film directors (all of them white males) who were nominated for best picture that year at the Oscars.
The hullabaloo arose between media critic Mark Crispin Miller and Laurie Penny; Mark claimed that the promotion of some ID politics may have been a way of "balkanizing the left." Penny wasn't pleased.
The Ford Foundation was of course historically linked with CIA, to the point where it became a joke. And there was even a CBS special (or was it ABC? I forget) featuring Mike Wallace where he tracked down all of these strange companies that linked CIA and various "non-profit" foundations. According to CIA whistleblower Philip Agee, the mood at CIA was grim after Wallace's report. They all felt down in the dumps.
They needn't have worried. A few months go by and people will forget. Just like they forgot about Gloria Steinem being a witting CIA asset.
As to the overall point, yes of course the feminist movement is a divide and conquer strategy. At least that's why billionaire men fund it.
Thomas Dewey actually wins the Presidency in 1948, as a progressive internationalist Republican, as he was widely expected to. ("Dewey Beats Truman": Truman retaining the Presidency was as much a shock in 1948 as Trump winning in 2016!) His VP was even more progressive Earl Warren, ex-governor of California (who, interestingly, won the governorship of California twice after winning both the Democratic and Republican primaries!), and -- in OTL -- Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, starting in 1953. So far -- so good: progressive Republicans win the Presidency in 1948.
Now, starting in 1950, trouble begins. North Korea invades South Korea, and President Dewey -- needing to burnish his nationalist credentials -- makes the mistake of rushing the US to war, without the United Nations, egged on, in part, by red-baiter freshman Representative Richard Nixon in the House and reactionary alcoholic Joseph McCarthy in the Senate. The war goes badly, dragging through the 1952 elections -- although Dewey and Warren manage to hang on to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. A grim mood settles over the nation as the war drags on.
Then -- on March 1, 1954
-- the shit hits the fan. A hitherto unknown group of Puerto Rican nationalists manage to ambush President Dewey's motorcade, as he was leaving the White House for a speech, killing him, while -- at the same time -- another group storms Blair House, killing the VP as well. The nation reacts with grief -- and fury! An ugly rumor sweeps through the polity, encouraged by reactionaries, that the Soviet Union was actually behind the assassinations. With the recent ascendency of scary enforcer Beria to the ruling position -- he'd recently had to put down a coup attempt of his own by the anti-Revolutionary traitor Khrushchev -- it seems completely plausible: the Kremlin's bland denial of any role in the twin assassinations is roundly discounted.
For the first time since the founding of the Republic, a Speaker of the House
-- who "supports the conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats, especially on opposing labor unions" -- ascends to the Presidency. Needless to say, he's prett
... keep reading on reddit ➡#MeToo and especially this hearing on Kavanaugh is signaling the end of women's liberation. If the mear accusation of a drunken 15 year old high-school girl can ruin your life and career then there will be significant backlash against all of the "Progress" the left has made to push for gender equity/equality. I know personally that I will not be sacrificing my sons to social situations where they will be put into unnecessary risk of their futures if they do anything of government or social significance. The lefts continued push of sexual allegations to achieve their political ends has caused the need for more traditional living and social interactions where we can reasonably guard against such possibilities in the future. We no longer have the luxury of living in a socially liberal sexually liberated society. It is an inherent hazard to our children and their future.
To clarify: I'm by no means a scholar on the women's liberation movement, so if you'd like to criticise and complicate the impact I attributed to the bicycle, please do so.
I'm particularly curious if there was ever explicit racial bias in how things like driver's licenses were awarded or cars were sold. It would seem a useful complement to things like ghettoisation, redlining, etc. If it was solely racial economic disparities that enforced these practices, did the proliferation of the bicycle affect them at all?
edit: this post speaks somewhat to the bicycle and the women's movement:
http://bloomingrock.com/2014/06/09/subversive-transportation-the-history-of-women-cyclists-and-how-women-cyclists-can-save-the-planet-today/
So I understand the main gist of TWL but there were a few things I'm not sure where they'd fall in here. When people say all men are oppressors, does that include gay men, asexual men, or trans women?
Also, how does lesbians fall in here? I am guessing well, what about asexual women? And trans men?
Also when it comes to something like a rich white woman refusing a poor black man service, is he still oppressing her while she discriminates against him?
I have so many grey edge cases where I am not sure things would fall. Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.
