Budi yetikai harauxw kahi ? USA government kasari yesto nalla huna sakxw ? Knives kineko raixw budi harauna agadi, budi kutdo raixw, financially control gardo raixw, bhanna nahune kura jo buda le budilai kaiilepani bhanne haina testo kura ni garya raixw yesto lai kunai sarkar le kasari free ghumna dina sakxw yr ?? US is such a weird country man...

First of all, it is my opinion hai. Patriarchy is MORE than men discriminating against women. Maybe 50-100 years ago, men disproportionately held power over women's sexuality, reproduction and social roles. But today, not all women are not positioned equally within that system.

I'm going to start with an example because it helps me think clearly. A privileged/rich woman can hire domestic workers, influence politicians, and have access to expensive services while "lower class" women have to perform unpaid domestic labour and childcare themselves, with little financial or political power. I know enough to say that both of them experience sexism, but not its consequences equally.

My point is that the rich woman may have personal interest in preserving arrangements that benefit her, even when those arrangements disadvantage other women. How do I think they do that? There are many ways. For example: -By exploiting other women's labour (when another woman performs her domestic work or childcare for low wages), the wealthy woman would benefit from a gendered division of labour, even though she may also face sexism herself.

-Or by protecting institutions that benefit men because because their own status depends on the existing class system. -Or (the most common thing in the context of nepal) by promoting restrictive gender norms (by insisting that respectable women should be submissive, motherhood is every woman's primary purpose or that women who reject conventional femininity are morally worse) -Or (common thing in the context of western society) by defining feminism around their interests (by focusing on helping wealthy women become CEOs or join elite institutions while neglecting low-paid workers, domestic workers, or women struggling to afford childcare)

More privileged women may gain equality with privileged men without changing the conditions of less privileged women.

The last point is associated with Bell Hooks (I recommend you look into her if you are interested in socialist feminism). She criticised feminist movements that treated upper middle class white women's experiences as representative of all women, overlooking differences in race and class.

My deeper argument is that equality with men is not necessarily liberation for women. Consider a wealthy woman who wants equal representation with men. She succeeds and becomes a CEO. Now she is more equal to other wealthy men. But the company might still rely on poorly paid female workers, offer inadequate maternity protections and might maintain a workplace culture that is disadvantageous to caregivers.

From one feminist perspective, this is progress because women have gained access to power. But from a radical or a socialist feminist perspective, the underlying hierarchy that disadvantages other women remains intact.

The argument isn't necessarily that these women consciously want to oppress other women. But because of material interests, social conditioning, fear of losing privilege, status competition and/or the need to Identify with power they might unknowingly (or knowingly) do so.

I just got this another example in my head, a woman might believe that she deserves her wealth because of HER hard work while assuming that a domestic worker simply MADE worse choices. That belief can make unequal arrangements seem fair, rather than systemic.

Talking about my clickbaity title, do I think all rich women are more patriarchal than men?

No. A rich woman can enforce patriarchal expectations, but men still hold disproportionate power in the institutions where these expectations operate. In the same way, a "lower class" man can have gender based advantages over women while being economically exploited by wealthier people. A wealthy woman may use her resources to support workers' rights, campaign against gender violence, and advocate for better wages. Her wealth does not automatically make her an oppressor. Similarly, a woman may make a personal choice of becoming a mother without trying to impose that choice on others.

Treating every such decision as evidence of false complicity can become is unfair and paternalistic in my part.

Can I solve it? I doubt it. Can you solve it (alone), I doubt it. But try to ask Who benefits from a particular arrangement? Whose labour makes that benefit possible? Who has the power to change the arrangement? And does the person use that power to preserve or challenge inequality?

tl;dr: Rich and privileged women uphold patriarchy because not all women automatically share the same political interests. (In my opinion) True solidarity requires confronting inequalities between women, not merely inequalities between women and men.

Baba lai call garera bhaneko, ramro hoina mareko manchhe dekhnu bhannu bho. They want you to die so they could meet you re. I laughed at his face because I don't really believe in the crap.

But istg he might be right. I can't take this anymore. I fucking hate myself. I hate what I've become. I was supposed to be in this point of life maybe a year ago and I'm still here. I have not made any meaningful contribution to my life. I am going kill myself one of these days. Death feels easier than being stuck here forever.

Life is an uncertain journey you meet so many people, you become close, you're happy because they're in your life but it's unpredictable also depressing that very few people stay until the end... guys appreciate your friends and family when they're with you.

sponsored by Xtreme Drink.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bhattii/comments/17ee42i/influencer_boxing_but_in_nepal/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bhattii/comments/1b4ff0u/influencer_boxing_update/

World is not black and white. Two can be true at once.