Sympathetic to the Butler here, but perhaps then your argument is less about interactional/identity classism but more about how the construction of public education systematically discriminates us from gaining accessible texts and what we understand as the canon. https://twitter.com/BryonyEilish/status/1350936381233770499

Florence and Slumflowers texts are NOT more accessible they’re more DIFESTIBLE, heavily marketed and much m often more expensive than some of the works of Toni Morrison (you can buy race for 99p) and bell hooks whose work is accessible and plagiarised often.

The classism argument shouldn’t be leveraged on people who are speaking to the plagiarism of radical language by women who amass capital through extracting labour from sexworkers and radical black scholars. That’s not how classism works.

Chidera and Florences digestible feminism necessitates exploitation to their material benefit. Buying into their brand of neoliberal pop feminism is to essentially buy into the systems of class exploitation. To think their digestibility to working class people makes...

....it inherently less elitist/classist to engage with their work is perhaps a fundamentally reductive argument that views class as an identity... rather than a material condition/relation to systems of harm and exploitation.

It also erased the radical thought that comes from working class people who are not only theorising in real time about struggle and offering solutions but positioning their work as somehow more ‘elite’ than those who are gaining millions?

I want people to understand here too that the relationship between academic publishing is different to the works of neolib pop feminist scholars.

I also want us to be really considerate in the ways in which we have become so comfortable with leveraging our positionalality in these kinds of ways. An experience doesn’t always grant us access to the politic necessary for our liberation.