Sure capitalism adds to the problem, but if Carmichael really meant to imply that a group of poor white men aren't given the power to lynch a black man through racism and racism alone, he's wrong, isn't he? This isn't entirely a rhetorical question, as racism in the US is a topic I know very little about, but my understanding was that you don't need to have economic power behind you to have social power over blacks, at least not in older times where blacks were seen as subhuman so seeing one lynched on the street wouldn't bother people much, and in fact may have been legal.
As for sex inequality, it's the same thing, except on that topic I can say I know what I'm talking about. A simple example of sex inequality regardless of economic power would be the class of sex slaves, pornai, in ancient Greece. They were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, below male slaves, and cheap enough to be accessible to all men regardless of income. A totally different example might be: in black US ghettos, the men may become burglars, drug dealers, or pimps, whereas the women are more likely to become prostitutes, owned by the pimps. (Not *that* different from ancient Greece, if you think about it.) One way or another, at every level of the economic hierarchy, women are below men. Poor men can abuse poor women and get away with it. Rich men can abuse rich women and get away with it. It's an axis of oppression orthogonal to the axes of wealth and race.
>talks about hetro (i think you're fuarrrking up your post with the wrong pronouns and soykaf?) sex
It wasn't about sexual orientation. The simple fact is that teenage girls are expected to get used to the idea of getting fuarrrked by a man, whereas teenage boys are not. (Of course, in an upside-down society w.r.t. sex inequality, the phrase "getting fuarrrked by a man" would instead be "getting fuarrrked by a woman", but since we don't live in that society we don't get the same feelings from that phrase, so I just used the phrase "getting fuarrrked by a man" to evoke the correct emotional response.)
>idk what porn you're talking about but it sounds hot
About 90% of porn scenes contain violence, which the woman is usually depicted as enjoying. (The 90% figure comes from a study of the 500 most popular porn movies in a certain year or something; I can find the study if you want.)
>for pornography (which should be (and i think is) protected under the first amendment) i dont see anything wrong with it at all if the other person is consenting. then again, >consent is a spook
Most oppression is consensual. The oppressors break the spirit of the oppressed so they become docile, because that's more economical than to keep them under literal gunpoint 24/7.
Any publication should be actionable under civil laws, such that a person is able to say: this publication incited hatred against me in a certain person, making that person assault me, so I want the publishers to be held responsible for what they caused. This is the Civil Rights Ordinance model as proposed by radical anti-porn feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon. They were also strongly against "obscenity"/censorship laws, as they knew the government would abuse such laws. Dworkin has explicitly answered in court that, indeed, she was even against censorship-based laws against child pornography (which most of the modern world has today), citing the fact that indeed they don't work; it just drives child pornography underground and doesn't stop it. This is exactly the situation we're in right now with CP. It's not even hard to get, thanks to Tor, Freenet, or I2P.
P.S. will stop posting off-topic if someone actually wants to get back on-topic. It seems anyone who was on-topic left the thread anyway so I guess people don't mind...