I see. I must have been mistaken then because I've always assumed the gap between a Dutch man and a Dutch woman was narrower than that between a Dutch man and a Bantu man
Clearly, these are all tied up together. The gap between a Dutch man and a Bantu man was not merely defined by colonialism, as you well know. And gender relations defined each of those peoples day to day life far more than interactions with representatives of each other.
But I still do not know the point of your comment. Is it to suggest that gender relations was not a big factor in the past?
The point of my comment is that it's almost as if we weren't constantly bombarded by how unfair current men are to women, we would start reflecting about these inconvenient legacies instead
I hear about the legacy of colonialism all the time. People can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I agree, some strands of feminism can certainly ignore all other dimensions of power, especially when coming from more affluent women, but I disagree that this was the implication of the original comment.
In fact, your comparison about walking and chewing gum vs people's attention makes zero sense. Attention is finite and mutually exclusive, you can only look at one thing at once
But I still do not know the point of your comment. Is it to suggest that gender relations was not a big factor in the past?