# shit MANarchists say



## DrRingDing (Jun 9, 2012)

Bloody funny.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 9, 2012)

really can't stand all this manarchism stuff. the problems the anarchist 'scene' has with attracting immature kids in it for aesthetic notions of rebellion and 'babes' has more fundamental roots in the general shitty nature of how they organise and the theories which are popular within their groups than it has to do with 'masculinity' or 'masculine attitudes'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 9, 2012)

Yes folks, the path to sexual equality starts with hating men and reinforcing illusory gender roles. You heard it hear first.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jun 9, 2012)

Miserable old gits.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 9, 2012)

What?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 9, 2012)

What's a manarchist?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2012)

An americman i think.

Where are you coming across this stuff in this country uberdog?


----------



## IC3D (Jun 9, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What's a manarchist?


I think its a male anarchist but I switched off when the woman started going on and on


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 9, 2012)

I watched about 20 secs of the vid, then dismissed it as US lifestylist anarcho bollox. That probably makes me a manarchist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 9, 2012)

IC3D said:


> I think its a male anarchist but I switched off when the woman started going on and on


 

womyn, please, you patriachal fucker.


----------



## smmudge (Jun 9, 2012)

It's a meme as well, with Ryan Gosling. But I don't know what Ryan Gosling has to do with it, who is he anyway? I don't think I know any of his films.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 9, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> womyn, please, you patriachal fucker.


don't you mean byrd.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 9, 2012)

smmudge said:


> It's a meme as well, with Ryan Gosling. But I don't know what Ryan Gosling has to do with it, who is he anyway? I don't think I know any of his films.


he was in the believer which was a pretty crap story of a jewish neo-nazi. i dont need to continue with that do i? thats a quid ill not see again from amazon!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> An americman i think.
> 
> Where are you coming across this stuff in this country uberdog?


 
Manchester anarchist circles had a meeting on the crisis of manarchism within their groups not so long ago. it's rife all over the self-identified 'autonomous' vaguely green 'scene'. anywhere you have a Solfed or an Afed this stuff doesn't follow too far behind ime.

basically i have more interaction with the 'activist community' than is good, proper or healthy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2012)

That stuff always got very short shrift during my time in the AF - identity/privilege politics was relentlessly attacked within the organisation and publicly (in mags/journals and in activity). Same goes for sol-fed. It's really not accurate to tie in any modern day localised emphasis on this way of dealing with social issues specifically with these two groups. If anything, it's coming from unorganised (in formal groups at least) individuals whose anarchists contacts tend to be internet based and with US individuals - it's a sign of their distance and aleination from groups like the AF (and wider society come to that).


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 9, 2012)

definitely, it's more of an issue amongst the localised activist 'cells' - but these are more and more common and increasingly taking on recruits from across different anarchist orgs so far as i can see. there's a lot of overlap... serious AFers and Solfeders that i know don't have any time for it, but there's a whole new breed of scripted anarchist kids who move between numerous different groupings and never really bother to learn anything in-depth about history etc and just eat all this up. i'd actually say this kind of thing has reached 'chronic' proportions amongst a lot of layers of the young, self-defined 'autonomous' and anarchist circuit... not just a question of internet politics anymore. i don't think we can underestimate quite how far all of these orgs (non-anarchist too) have degenerated culturally and politically over the past 20 years


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2012)

I've just came across the term _brogressives_...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 9, 2012)

it's also particularly present amongst the greens, etc... i think it'd be fair to say that all these new faddy ideas (also 'consensus decision-making' etc) are more prevalent in areas where the branches are made up of recruits from the late 90s anti-capitalist green movement onwards rather than from before that


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I've just came across the term _brogressives_...


 
also 'brocialist' for all the Swappies, that's a popular one


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 9, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> Manchester anarchist circles had a meeting on the crisis of manarchism within their groups not so long ago. it's rife all over the self-identified 'autonomous' vaguely green 'scene'. anywhere you have a Solfed or an Afed this stuff doesn't follow too far behind ime.



There's bound to be lots of manarchists in Manchester.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 9, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> definitely, it's more of an issue amongst the localised activist 'cells' - but these are more and more common and increasingly taking on recruits from across different anarchist orgs so far as i can see. there's a lot of overlap... serious AFers and Solfeders that i know don't have any time for it, but there's a whole new breed of scripted anarchist kids who move between numerous different groupings and never really bother to learn anything in-depth about history etc and just eat all this up. i'd actually say this kind of thing has reached 'chronic' proportions amongst a lot of layers of the young, self-defined 'autonomous' and anarchist circuit... not just a question of internet politics anymore. i don't think we can underestimate quite how far all of these orgs (non-anarchist too) have degenerated culturally and politically over the past 20 years


 
If only some of the old anarchists who know what they're talking about would come along and tell the younger anarchists what they should be doing. If they did that then we could all have those pesky hierarchies and power structures dismantled by teatime.

I find it interesting that you use the phrase 'self-defined' with apparent derision. Who exactly should we be defined be? If younger anarchists are taking a different tack from previous generations, and quite possibly getting everything wrong in the process, then that's probably because they've taken a good look at what passed for anarchism in the past and decided it wasn't for them for whatever reason. One of the reasons for this is the general attitude shown in the post quoted above.

Anarchists are just humans, they're a product of their culture and their uprbringing just like everyone else. Obviously young anarchists today will be a different breed to those who were around thirty years ago, but there's no sense in moaning about it. I'd happily agree that there is too much lifestyle bollocks going on in certain groups but the problem is by no means endemic. It is not only Afed and Solfed who are capable of being 'serious' as you put it, many of us non-aligned anarchists get as annoyed with all the self-referential cliquey shit as anybody else. Tarring anyone under 35 who owns a black hoody with the same brush is not helpful. 

As for saying that anarchist organisations have degenerated so far in twenty years, what was going on twenty years ago that was so fucking special? What right have you got to make an assertion like that? And what are you personally doing to reverse this downward trend besides moaning about it?

Butchersapron will be along momentarily to tell me I'm wrong about everything and that I'm not even an anarchist so I don't get an opinion. And thus shall he prove my point.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 9, 2012)

agreed frank. not all anarchos follow this identity politics bollocks (bollo-ticks?). however, generalisations on anarchists in general are frequent from the socialists so unsurprised to see this here.


----------



## Athos (Jun 9, 2012)

IC3D said:
			
		

> don't you mean byrd.



Gram(sci) Parsons.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 9, 2012)

Maybe I should do a youtube video of 'shit grumpy old anarchists say'.

Same as all other grumpy old people basically. There were none of this when I were a lad. Kids these days don't know they're born. There were none of this when I were a lad. Did I say that already? Who are you? Is this my house? During the war all this was grass. It was me who killed Thatcher you know, not the IRA. Who are you?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 9, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> There's bound to be lots of manarchists in Manchester.


 
More like MANchester.

Oh shit, wait...


----------



## Athos (Jun 9, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Maybe I should do a youtube video of 'shit grumpy old anarchists say'.
> 
> Same as all other grumpy old people basically. There were none of this when I were a lad. Kids these days don't know they're born. There were none of this when I were a lad. Did I say that already? Who are you? Is this my house? During the war all this was grass. It was me who killed Thatcher you know, not the IRA. Who are you?


 
Don't let London_calling hear that ageism!


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 9, 2012)

I don't think that video gives good examples of what most people mean when they say 'manarchism'. It's mostly a collection of annoying things that young people in activist 'scenes' tend to do, mostly to try to gain social status within the group. Which interestingly includes making videos that no one outside their scene can understand...

As I understood the term it is about allowing the norms of mainstream patriarchy infect everything you do while you pretend to hate all forms of domination. It can result in heavily male-dominated groups that get into a downward spiral of not providing a welcoming atmosphere to women, which results in women never joining, which means patriarchal attitudes are never challenged, which means the men go on behaving in ways that put women off from joining...

This has some better examples, though it also has some stuff that is stretching it a bit: http://youmightbeamanarchistif.tumblr.com/ 

butchersapron on what grounds did people critique the idea of privilege?  It's not that I love it, and you have to avoid being essentialist about it, but it can sometimes be useful to explain to, say, a white middle class man, why it is that he's never had to think about race issues too much.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 9, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> What's a manarchist?


 
I really don't think American anarchists are as bat shit crazy as some peeps in Britain like to think at times . . . and the smell in the hall at this year's Anarchist Bookfair in NYC was the exact same smell as the one that used to waft through old Anarchist Bookfairs held at Conway Hall.

If I'd ever read any Proust, I could have claimed it as a Proustian moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2012)

Brainaddict said:


> butchersapron on what grounds did people critique the idea of privilege? It's not that I love it, and you have to avoid being essentialist about it, but it can sometimes be useful to explain to, say, a white middle class man, why it is that he's never had to think about race issues too much.


 
_Who_ is going to explain it?  Prvilige is just the US version of the sort of identity politics that we've seen over here but individualised (despite its claims to be based on a social analysis), cut free from wider social/class understanding and then turned round and used as a competitive stick with which to beat others by - often by those who in traditional terms are the most advantaged (despite whatever preemptory self-justifications about how its to be used are offered) - and by those who reduce political action to either a) perosnalised attacks on other individuals or b) being present at some sort of min-riot (i.e smashing windows, not fighting). This might be worth a read, can't remember though: Privilege politics is reformism


----------



## articul8 (Jun 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _Who_ is going to explain it?  Prvilige is just the US version of the sort of identity politics that we've seen over here but individualised (despite its claims to be based on a social analysis), cut free from wider social/class understanding and then turned round and used as a competitive stick with which to beat others by - often by those who in traditional terms are the most advantaged (despite whatever preemptory self-justifications about how its to be used are offered) - and by those who reduce political action to either a) perosnalised attacks on other individuals or b) being present at some sort of min-riot (i.e smashing windows, not fighting). This might be worth a read, can't remember though: Privilege politics is reformism


 That's just your white male privilege showing through


----------



## Nice one (Jun 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That stuff always got very short shrift during my time in the AF - identity/privilege politics was relentlessly attacked within the organisation and publicly (in mags/journals and in activity). Same goes for sol-fed. It's really not accurate to tie in any modern day localised emphasis on this way of dealing with social issues specifically with these two groups. If anything, it's coming from unorganised (in formal groups at least) individuals whose anarchists contacts tend to be internet based and with US individuals - it's a sign of their distance and aleination from groups like the AF (and wider society come to that).


 
i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg
http://manchesterafed.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/how-not-to-be-a-manarchist/
http://libcom.org/forums/solidarity-federation/macho-posting-libcom-solfed-13092011

which i think reflects the constituency of the federations now - mainly young, graduates, brought up on the internet etc


----------



## smmudge (Jun 9, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> he was in the believer which was a pretty crap story of a jewish neo-nazi. i dont need to continue with that do i? thats a quid ill not see again from amazon!


 
Oh ok, that sort of makes sense then I guess perhaps


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 9, 2012)

I read that libcom piece but I don't get why we must choose either macro-politics or micro-politics. Why not both? It contains a hint of a link between the collapse of social movements in the US and the use of privilige theory, but I could also hint at the link between collapse of social movements in the US and the rise of Apple as provider of electronic consumer products over the same period. The cause and effect relationship is darkly hinted at but never explained.

And not sure privilige is so individualistic - surely the purpose of it is to say you are not just an atomised individual, you are a product of your social class/upbringing and you are positioned within it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 9, 2012)

Nice one said:


> i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg
> http://manchesterafed.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/how-not-to-be-a-manarchist/
> http://libcom.org/forums/solidarity-federation/macho-posting-libcom-solfed-13092011
> 
> which i think reflects the constituency of the federations now - mainly young, graduates, brought up on the internet etc


If that's the case then both the af and sf should have a look at the swappies and see how their concentration on students has paid off

it's disappointing that the af and sf should have written off the vast majority of the working class


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2012)

Brainaddict said:


> I read that libcom piece but I don't get why we must choose either macro-politics or micro-politics. Why not both? It contains a hint of a link between the collapse of social movements in the US and the use of privilige theory, but I could also hint at the link between collapse of social movements in the US and the rise of Apple as provider of electronic consumer products over the same period. The cause and effect relationship is darkly hinted at but never explained.
> 
> And not sure privilige is so individualistic - surely the purpose of it is to say you are not just an atomised individual, you are a product of your social class/upbringing and you are positioned within it.


Who said that people have to choose between the two approaches? I don't even believe that there are two entirely separate choices there anyway ? My point was that the form these choices/approaches are taking place in these groups are often being made on an individualistic competitive advantage basis that produces  both the appearance of these two levels and then consequently producing the difference itself, to the detriment of getting a grasp on the totality here (again, despite the much parroted bleating that _this doesn't mean that you're a bad person_ or whatever) and to sorting out whatever the issues may be. It's chest-prodding of the worst sort.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2012)

Nice one said:


> i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg
> http://manchesterafed.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/how-not-to-be-a-manarchist/
> http://libcom.org/forums/solidarity-federation/macho-posting-libcom-solfed-13092011
> 
> which i think reflects the constituency of the federations now - mainly young, graduates, brought up on the internet etc


I saw the first link before i posted, in fact it was what led me to suggest this may be a localised thing, 2nd link is rather long but will try and have a read through the debate later. Rapidly expanding bristol AF doesn't appear to have adopted this approach though.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 9, 2012)

Emphasising this kind of shit would be the perfect way of disrupting hitherto effective groups. It is also a good angle for female undercover's to have maximum impact in disruption now that male Officer's building "relationships" with activists is probably not thought of as politically acceptable. 

No wonder that Queer/ Trans  activist groups seemed to be particularly the least infiltrated/ compromised during the Royal Wedding- there are probably not that many trans met police officers. 

Having said that, I do agree with Butchers about privileged peeps  using some of this kind of stuff to build their own hierarchies. All too easy for a lesbian  Eng. Lit. grad to try to belittle someone's attempt to strike up a conversation.  A "not interested" if need be is probably more appropriate than building a whole politics around unwanted conversation openers or ineffective pick up lines. Unless there is another agenda in operation.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 9, 2012)

Too scene, too middle class.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 9, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Emphasising this kind of shit would be the perfect way of disrupting hitherto effective groups. It is also a good angle for female undercover's to have maximum impact in disruption now that male Officer's building "relationships" with activists is probably not thought of as politically acceptable.
> 
> No wonder that Queer/ Trans activist groups seemed to be particularly the least infiltrated/ compromised during the Royal Wedding- there are probably not that many trans met police officers.
> 
> Having said that, I do agree with Butchers about privileged peeps using some of this kind of stuff to build their own hierarchies. All too easy for a lesbian Eng. Lit. grad to try to belittle someone's attempt to strike up a conversation. A "not interested" if need be is probably more appropriate than building a whole politics around unwanted conversation openers or ineffective pick up lines. Unless there is another agenda in operation.


 
Just read the Manchester Afed page linked to and it is quite good- thought provoking. Plenty of potential for abuse of these areas but that isn't a reason for not opening up what can be a can of worms. Just a need to keep things in perspective and not over navel gaze.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 9, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Too scene, too middle class.


 
and it is amazing how exclusionary "tree people" as we used to call them can be.


----------



## october_lost (Jun 9, 2012)

Nice one said:


> i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg


No they haven't. Afed have a large anarcho-feminist contingent who can't be dismissed as having identity politics and as for SF, it's demographics have long been a serious cause for concern, the discussion is a just a reflection of that. The problem here is that the manarchism shit does have a grain of truth to it, but it's warped out of context with the 'personal is political' crowd along with consensus decision making and a plethora of other sub-cultural bullshit. 

The reason I say it's important, for example, is because if we're wanting substantial more working class women to get involved in organising, it stands to reason that we address a baseline of things like division of labour and things like child care provision, as well as ensuring young women aren't leered over but the some of flotsam who inhabit the various circles. I recall an antifa gathering I attended wherein the small handful of women present of about 30+ did all the cooking and cleaning, so needless to say if it's not talked about and addressed we just perpetuate our cultural baggage regardless.


----------



## Nice one (Jun 10, 2012)

october_lost said:


> No they haven't. Afed have a large anarcho-feminist contingent who can't be dismissed as having identity politics and as for SF, it's demographics have long been a serious cause for concern, the discussion is a just a reflection of that. The problem here is that the manarchism shit does have a grain of truth to it, but it's warped out of context with the 'personal is political' crowd along with consensus decision making and a plethora of other sub-cultural bullshit.
> 
> The reason I say it's important, for example, is because if we're wanting substantial more working class women to get involved in organising, it stands to reason that we address a baseline of things like division of labour and things like child care provision, as well as ensuring young women aren't leered over but the some of flotsam who inhabit the various circles. I recall an antifa gathering I attended wherein the small handful of women present of about 30+ did all the cooking and cleaning, so needless to say if it's not talked about and addressed we just perpetuate our cultural baggage regardless.


 
the manchester af minutes speaks for themselves.

I would imagine there's obviously internal discussions going on in all the branches which forms its collective opinion and approach.  I don't think anybody is dismissing this or the weight that it carries.

What is strange in the manchester af minutes (and i assume the meeting itself) is that certain words have been directly imported from the states - they come fully formed and as such not open for debate and discussion. So the af minutes read like they do have "a grain of truth to it, but it's warped out of context with the 'personal is political' crowd along with consensus decision making and a plethora of other sub-cultural bullshit".

It also reads like a check list of guilt for the incumbent midddle class anarchist.

From a general outsider perspective the gender/privilege concepts being introduced in the way that they are, it seems like the next generation is staking its claim over the anarchsist federations. I could be completely wrong in this but i reckon the internal discussions and debates will prove interesting.


----------



## october_lost (Jun 10, 2012)

A workshop (by whom, for whom?) is not representative of the AF as a whole. I am guessing this was an open workshop hosted by them. For what its worth its cringe worthy reading. I know of people who promote 'white privilege' and other anarcho-ghetto type politics and I have never encountered this shit from AF people. As someone previously said, its usually unorganised anarchos circles, where informal hierarchies exist, and these things are seen as a way with dealing with those said hierarchies. They don't, but hey...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 10, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Too scene, too middle class.


 
Too 1980s revivalism, as well.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 1, 2012)

From this year's Anarchist Boot Sale programme:

"4pm – 5pm
Privilege Theory: Thinking about Minorities and Inequalities
The British anarchist movement remains largely white and male-dominated. It arguably pays lip-service to LGBTQ and other issues around equal access and participation. Only our movement can change itself, but are we capable of moving beyond tokenism and the 'other oppressions' clauses in our aims and principles? In an attempt to learn from other movements about inequality, and about the interactions between struggles, the AF has been examining 'privilege theory' as a new starting point. We would value your thoughts and experiences too. Contact us in advance for a discussion document on Privilege Theory if you like (but not essential!).
Organised by: Anarchist Federation (www.afed.org.uk)"

Is this stuff getting more traction?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 1, 2012)

it will be, it's very 'in'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

> The British anarchist movement remains largely white and male-dominated.


 
Largely white yeah, but male dominated? Belching out unqualified statements like that is not very helpful IMO, particularly if it cheapens progress that has already been made. My experience of anarchism in Britain today is that there are still persistent issues with gender and sexuality but they don't amount to male domination. Other people's experiences may be different, but that blurb quoted above makes no allowance for that. Everything's shit, everything everyone has done so far has failed, only this workshop on privilege theory can save us now. And if you want to understand it you'd better give us a call first so we can explain everything. We wouldn't want anyone to be in a privileged position after all.

The interesting thing about privilege is you can't always choose whether you have it or not. But you can choose whether or not to be a patronising tosspot and tell everybody else your opinion of what they do with their time as if it's a scientific fact.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 1, 2012)

Oi, get my name off that quote!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 1, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> it will be, it's very 'in'


 
It's all over the yank liberal parts of the internet certainly, and it seems to be completely hegemonic amongst radical liberals over there. It's made quite slow progress on this side of the Atlantic though. So far.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Largely white yeah, but male dominated? Belching out unqualified statements like that is not very helpful IMO, particularly if it cheapens progress that has already been made. My experience of anarchism in Britain today is that there are still persistent issues with gender and sexuality but they don't amount to male domination. Other people's experiences may be different, but that blurb quoted above makes no allowance for that. Everything's shit, everything everyone has done so far has failed, only this workshop on privilege theory can save us now. And if you want to understand it you'd better give us a call first so we can explain everything. We wouldn't want anyone to be in a privileged position after all.
> 
> The interesting thing about privilege is you can't always choose whether you have it or not. But you can choose whether or not to be a patronising tosspot and tell everybody else your opinion of what they do with their time as if it's a scientific fact.


wtf blurb did you read?

Terrible to see the AF introducing rather than challenging this.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 1, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> From this year's Anarchist Boot Sale programme:
> 
> "4pm – 5pm
> Privilege Theory: Thinking about Minorities and Inequalities
> ...


 
Yep, it certainly seems that way from what I hear from friends in England and the return to the activist ghetto on libcom.
Hilariously it is being pushed by some of the very posters who were utterly crude in their reductionist two class politics as a kind of overcompensation. Tbh libcom admin policy over the years has become a bit like the old CP always swinging from one extreme to the other depending on what they think will "grow the website".

Also the criticism of activism that grew on libcom seems to have been rather superficial, the problem being understood as simply the "wrong kind of activism" and so workplace organising and such is still seen through an activist prism, the word activist is switched for "organiser" but still remains the subject acting on the object (class).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 1, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Yep, it certainly seems that way from what I hear from friends in England and the return to the activist ghetto on libcom.
> Hilariously it is being pushed by some of the very posters who were utterly crude in their reductionist two class politics as a kind of overcompensation. Tbh libcom admin policy over the years has become a bit like the old CP always swinging from one extreme to the other depending on what they think will "grow the website".
> 
> Also the criticism of activism that grew on libcom seems to have been rather superficial, the problem being understood as simply the "wrong kind of activism" and so workplace organising and such is still seen through an activist prism, the word activist is switched for "organiser" but still remains the subject acting on the object (class).


 
Are people on libcom actually pushing this though? Nobody has openly defended it on the thread over there. Very few people are willing to put the boot into it either though. It's all a bit shifty and uncomfortable.

(Also, all of the moderators and old hands over there seem to have changed their usernames so I'm not actually sure who used to argue what).


----------



## revol68 (Oct 1, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are people on libcom actually pushing this though? Nobody has openly defended it on the thread over there.
> 
> (Also, all of the moderators and old hands over there seem to have changed their usernames so I'm not actually sure who used to argue what).


 
not actively pushing it no, but being very easy on it. It's all part of their campaign for hearts and minds, everyone has to be super nice to idiotic ideas because it's about a paedological approach were "us" with the correct politics patronisingly tutor the less enlightened to the "right politics" and being a bit mean or snappy will put people off and they'll be lost to "the struggle", as if struggle comes from winning people round to the right ideas by patronising the shit out of them. The way they now talk about "organising" is pretty much activist crap.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 1, 2012)

The problem with 'privilege' as I see it is that it can often encourage an attitude whereby it's 'enough' to simply say you recognise your privilege, and then that's it, it stops there. As long as you write yourself a dandy little privilege list, you've done your politics. As long as you shout at everyone else to 'check their privilege' you've done your politics.

In and of itself, it's not automatically a terrible concept, because anything that can be used as a tool to try to understand the tangle of relations and structures that position people (and through which people position themselves, let's not forget that part of it) has the opportunity to be used for good (for want of a less trite term). A lot of the limiting issues of the idea of 'privilege' are simply that it can discourage any other kind of activity or even thinking. Once you've identified your own privilege and laid it out on the table, there's the danger that you're going to sit back and feel superior, and think that all you need to do now is just get everyone else to make their own little privilege list and then...well, what then?

I recognise it can be very useful to use the concept, but it shouldn't be the _only_ concept that's used. For some people though, it often is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 1, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The problem with 'privilege' as I see it is that it can often encourage an attitude whereby it's 'enough' to simply say you recognise your privilege, and then that's it, it stops there.


 
The problem with "privilege" as I see it is that it's a one size fits all theory which elides the differences between distinct forms of oppression and distinct sets of social relationships. And that it results in a politics of guilty self-flagellation. And that it presents individual behaviour changes as solutions to problematic social relationships and structural issues. And that it is often used to shut down debate. And... etc etc etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

Still never came across this in this country in any form.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Still never came across this in this country in any form.


 
It occasionally shows up here in places like the Irish Feminist Network's facebook page, about twenty comments in to some discussion or other. I haven't encountered in real life yet, but its dominance on the yank-liberal internet is probably going to give it a presence here sooner or later.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 1, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The problem with "privilege" as I see it is that it's a one size fits all theory which elides the differences between distinct forms of oppression and distinct sets of social relationships. And that it results in a politics of guilty self-flagellation. And that it presents individual behaviour changes as solutions to problematic social relationships and structural issues. And that it is often used to shut down debate. And... etc etc etc.


 
Which is partially what I was trying to say, particularly in terms of individual behaviour and shutting down debate.

I see no problem, if that's what someone wants to do, with using it as a starting point by which someone might come to an awareness that there are differences in the way in which people function in societies and are treated by those societies. As long as that isn't all there is. As long as it moves on to a more sophisticated analysis. Well, you know, if they want. I can't tell anyone what to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It occasionally shows up here in places like the Irish Feminist Network's facebook page, about twenty comments in to some discussion or other. I haven't encountered in real life yet, but its dominance on the yank-liberal internet is probably going to give it a presence here sooner or later.


I don't see why. It's a race based sublimation of class. No relevance here.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I don't see why. It's a race based sublimation of class. No relevance here.


 
Originally but some feminist groups are big into it, some of the stuff I see about photoshoots that use the cultural artifacts of "the other" would make you cry.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I don't see why. It's a race based sublimation of class. No relevance here.


 
It was originally a theory of the role of racism in the development and operation of US capitalism. A wrong theory, but not a stupid one. But liberal "privilege theory" now really doesn't have much in common with the semi-Maoist "white skin privilege" theory it sprang from, other than both versions pointing towards a politics of individual guilt.

Now it's less a "race based sublimation of class" and more an overarching identity politics theory which flattens out the differences between all forms of oppression, while still pointing towards individual solution to social issues. It seems to me that in this liberal version, which doesn't (sorry) privilege race, its the sort of thing that could be appealing to our liberal identity politics types too.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

It's the same as it ever was -there is no moving away from it's roots to something identity based, it was that shit from the start. It never really had anything to do with maoism or the STO FFS it was only ever the idea of an educated but cut off from the w/c but in some form of authority middle class types. Find me a prof or a civil servant or their ivy league offspring not spouting this shit for years.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's the same as it ever was -there is no moving away from it's roots to something identity based, it was that shit from the start. It never really had anything to do with maoism or the STO FFS it was only ever the idea of an educated but cut off from the w/c but in some form of authority middle class types. Find me a prof or a civil servant or their ivy league offspring not spouting this shit for years.


 
Think that's the crux of the matter, aye.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 1, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It was originally a theory of the role of racism in the development and operation of US capitalism. A wrong theory, but not a stupid one. But liberal "privilege theory" now really doesn't have much in common with the semi-Maoist "white skin privilege" theory it sprang from, other than both versions pointing towards a politics of individual guilt.
> 
> Now it's less a "race based sublimation of class" and more an overarching identity politics theory which flattens out the differences between all forms of oppression, while still pointing towards individual solution to social issues. It seems to me that in this liberal version, which doesn't (sorry) privilege race, its the sort of thing that could be appealing to our liberal identity politics types too.


 
Is it not (also, perhaps) just a continuation of 'intersectional' stuff that feminism was talking about way back when? Which, yes, identity politics.

So anyway, if you have a situation whereby there is a left-wing organisation of some sort, and the members display racism or sexism either externally or internally towards other members, other than saying "don't be a dick" how do you address it? I think it's easy to understand why many turn to the idea of privilege, as a starting point to try to understand why some people act as they do, and are who they are, but how do you move beyond that point and make it more relevant?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 1, 2012)

This one was awesome especially as it came from a canadian ex housemate of mine who was a middle class (in the real sense) international student who spouted shit liberal politics and huffed cos I slagged off her Ad Busters.


----------



## elbows (Oct 2, 2012)

I have stolen the nipples of freedom, ground them down and reforged them as great paddles of woe with which the buttocks of the innocent slaves will be made to glow for the entertainment of the megaprivs. I am the divide and the conquer, smell my identity, tremble at the thought of what is lost in my wake. I have a relative that specialises in marketing tribes to themselves, oh glorious feedback loop, drive the consumption, drive the disconnect.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's the same as it ever was -there is no moving away from it's roots to something identity based, it was that shit from the start. It never really had anything to do with maoism or the STO FFS it was only ever the idea of an educated but cut off from the w/c but in some form of authority middle class types. Find me a prof or a civil servant or their ivy league offspring not spouting this shit for years.


 
I agree that it isn't something that's particularly connected to Maoism. It just happened to originate on the fringes of US Maoism, but it flourished elsewhere. In that process it was restructured, being recast as a general theory of oppression rather than a theory of the primacy of race. It actually seems to have a stronger hold among American feminists than amongst black movements in the US. And in so far as it establishes a presence here, the conduit will likely be internet feminism. It really is nearly totally dominant on American feminist websites, and those are widely read by young feminists in Britain and Ireland.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> This one was awesome especially as it came from a canadian ex housemate of mine who was a middle class (in the real sense) international student who spouted shit liberal politics and huffed cos I slagged off her Ad Busters.



What the fuck is that


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> What the fuck is that


 
A preview of the front cover of the forthcoming issue of "_Organise!_"


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)




----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 2, 2012)

smmudge said:


> It's a meme as well, with Ryan Gosling. But I don't know what Ryan Gosling has to do with it, who is he anyway? I don't think I know any of his films.


The saviour of Laurie Penny


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

I won't claim to understand every point made here; I am not an anarchist, nor a political junkie. So, as an 'outsider' who sympathises: that OP is truly cringe-worthy. It's attacking a form of activism that I have only ever been aware of on the internet, and only amongst Americans. I don't see the relevancy it has to UK politics whatsoever.

I also read the next link posted, "youmightbeamanarchistif.." and that wasn't any better. How does anything there address the needs and worries of the British w/c? Or even British women, whether w/c or not? It's got that horrible feeling of empty American 'left' politics (which I guess is what people refer to as lifestyle anarchism? Not an anarchist so I'm not too familiar with the terms). I seriously hope that isn't the current state of British anarchism.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

As a mate of mine in solfed said, it's like a lot of people ran away from the activist ghetto and all it's crazy internal politics in favour of class struggle in workplaces and communities but having found out that all the will in the world can't just make it happen, no matter how good an "organiser" they are, they have ended up falling back into the activist ghetto they railed against as it provides some sense of "doing something".

Though he might have been just trying to make me feel better about being a lazy, cynical prick.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 2, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> The saviour of Laurie Penny


It's like 3 degrees of separation, a new rule for P&P, all threads  will return to Laurie Penny within 3  pages.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I won't claim to understand every point made here; I am not an anarchist, nor a political junkie. So, as an 'outsider' who sympathises: that OP is truly cringe-worthy. It's attacking a form of activism that I have only ever been aware of on the internet, and only amongst Americans. I don't see the relevancy it has to UK politics whatsoever.
> 
> I also read the next link posted, "youmightbeamanarchistif.." and that wasn't any better. How does anything there address the needs and worries of the British w/c? Or even British women, whether w/c or not? It's got that horrible feeling of empty American 'left' politics (which I guess is what people refer to as lifestyle anarchism? Not an anarchist so I'm not too familiar with the terms). I seriously hope that isn't the current state of British anarchism.



"We don't like your ivory tower, so in response we're going to construct loads of ivory towers of our own and argue with you from the tops of those".


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A preview of the front cover of the forthcoming issue of "_Organise!_"


It doesn't bode well for the Bookfair does it  It's bad enough pushing past the dogs on strings and pervasive odour of BO without the prospect of a bunch of Laurie Pennys in V masks queuing outside AFED's meeting on Privilege Theory, tweeting about how hip and cool and _subversive_ it all is.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2012)

I wonder if I'll have to talk about this at play group this morning?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Oh, happy birthday, revol!

Damn. You're just online, not your birthday. Congrats on the job though.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Oh, happy birthday, revol!
> 
> Damn. You're just online, not your birthday. Congrats on the job though.


 
but it is my bday


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> but it is my bday


I thought I'd made a mistake when I also saw you on line (and didn't scroll down to double check). Happy birthday!


----------



## JimW (Oct 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's the same as it ever was -there is no moving away from it's roots to something identity based, it was that shit from the start. It never really had anything to do with maoism or the STO FFS it was only ever the idea of an educated but cut off from the w/c but in some form of authority middle class types. Find me a prof or a civil servant or their ivy league offspring not spouting this shit for years.


Wasn't the phrase 'white skin privilege' coined by some Detroit car workers' organisation? Have a vague feeling of reading a sixties text when I first came across this sort of argument online and trying to see if there was anything to it beyond the obvious nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2012)

JimW said:


> Wasn't the phrase 'white skin privilege' coined by some Detroit car workers' organisation? Have a vague feeling of reading a sixties text when I first came across this sort of argument online and trying to see if there was anything to it beyond the obvious nonsense.


That stuff did come out things like the Sojourner Truth Organisation, members who went on to Race Traitor and other similar things. The League of Revolutionary Black Wokers and the various RUM groups in the factories didn't really have those views, they were pretty much straight down the class class - and the STO members in the new book on them criticise themelves for coming up with these ideas when they didn't really have any real ties with either the former groups or their working/social environments of that part of the class (that's from my skim reading of the book to be fair, i've if misread that i'll come back and say so when i get started on it a few days).


Point about the AF meeting, i'm going to ask them for a copy of the discussion document, i'm hoping that the blurb was just poorly written, suggesting as it does that this might represent a new start point for the AF rather than just a debate, because even if there is significant section of the (new?) membership taking this seriously then the AF would be going backwards. I'm not convinced that they are, but will read the document. I'm coming round to nice one's point above from when the thread first started that this might be coming in off the back of new set of young anarchists who haven't seen the sort of class struggles that the older generation have and that formed their politics and so the new set concentrate on pointing their fingers inwards (iyswim).


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I won't claim to understand every point made here; I am not an anarchist, nor a political junkie. So, as an 'outsider' who sympathises: that OP is truly cringe-worthy. It's attacking a form of activism that I have only ever been aware of on the internet, and only amongst Americans. I don't see the relevancy it has to UK politics whatsoever.
> 
> I also read the next link posted, "youmightbeamanarchistif.." and that wasn't any better. How does anything there address the needs and worries of the British w/c? Or even British women, whether w/c or not? It's got that horrible feeling of empty American 'left' politics (which I guess is what people refer to as lifestyle anarchism? Not an anarchist so I'm not too familiar with the terms). I seriously hope that isn't the current state of British anarchism.


 

Americans are traitors Unless They Vote Obama. 




> *you might be a manarchist if you believe it's more important to work towards boycotting and dismantling the State than it is to vote for whatever party classifies women as actual people so that, while the awesome fight against the State continues, women can actually survive.*
> Asked by Anonymous
> 
> _This person gets it, almost. Never forget that the conservative “War on Women” is just the newest face of the age-old drive to squash out anyone who doesn’t fit into or can’t or won’t be used by the system, and by not focusing on how people of color, trans*people, disabled people, and neurodivergent people are affected, we let the baddies win by erasing peoples’ experiences.
> But yes, if you believe in voting for the worst candidate in hopes that the system will implode on itself, you might be a manarchist. _




http://youmightbeamanarchistif.tumblr.com/


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

> *YOU NEGATE OTHERS' EXPERIENCES, EXERT YOUR PRIVILEGES TO THEIR FULLEST, AND GENERALLY PERPETUATE HETEROPATRIARCHAL BULLSHIT.​*


 
I would say that just dismissing someone as a 'manarchist' because they don't agree with you counts as negating their experiences and exerting your privileges. The very phrase 'manarchist', used as a negative, is a device for exerting (or creating) privilege, as it is apparently only women who get to use it. Worse, it seems that men are afforded no means to defend themselves from it.


----------



## Random (Oct 2, 2012)

" if you believe in voting for the worst candidate in hopes that the system will implode on itself, you might be a manarchist."

American lefties have very very weird things to fight over.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

this stuff is rife all over the UK. NUS has recently No Platformed Tony Benn and George Galloway because of their support for Assange, which apparently makes them predatory 'rape apologists' who can't be trusted to share a platform with female student twats. hilariously, Galloway is suing them for defamation. clusterfuck

ETA - i should explain that the moves to No Platform Galloway have come from the same identity/privilege politics cunts who have actually taken control of the "union"


check your privilege folks


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> this stuff is rife all over the UK. NUS has recently No Platformed Tony Benn and George Galloway because of their support for Assange, which apparently makes them predatory 'rape apologists' who can't be trusted to share a platform with female student twats. hilariously, Galloway is suing them for defamation. clusterfuck
> 
> 
> check your privilege folks


Hang on, that's not why the NUS no platformed Galloway (dunno about Benn).

Edit: ah yes, here we are: http://www.socialistunity.com/the-n...-the-door-to-legal-action-by-george-galloway/


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 2, 2012)

I suppose the thing that jumps to mind for me is, what's the point? I mean step (1) rid the anarchist movement of "manarchism", step (2) err...? victory?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

it's because of his comments r.e. supporting Assange - his 'sex game' business. Benn was hooked in because of a far more general and less offensive support for Assange


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Usually when I learn a new word I feel it's added to my life in some small way.

Not today.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would say that just dismissing someone as a 'manarchist' because they don't agree with you counts as negating their experiences and exerting your privileges. The very phrase 'manarchist', used as a negative, is a device for exerting (or creating) privilege, as it is apparently only women who get to use it. Worse, it seems that men are afforded no means to defend themselves from it.


That's partly the point though, isn't it? It goes beyond the occasional sharp dig in the ribs (e.g. OWM alert lol) and makes it into an identity deathmatch.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> it's because of his comments r.e. supporting Assange - his 'sex game' business. Benn was hooked in because of a far more general and less offensive support for Assange


GG's comments were a problem because they went beyond supporting Assange to describing rape* as "poor sexual etiquette".


*In the case of Assange, obviously that's still at the point of allegation only.


----------



## Random (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> GG's comments were a problem because they went beyond supporting Assange to describing rape* as "poor sexual etiquette".
> 
> 
> *In the case of Assange, obviously that's still at the point of allegation only.


It is still merely alledged that JA raped anyone, but didn't GG describe the allegations as not amounting to rape. He may think he's defending someone but to me it sounds like he's already decided JA is in fact guilty.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Random said:


> It is still merely alledged that JA raped anyone, but didn't GG describe the allegations as not amounting to rape. He may think he's defending someone but to me it sounds like he's already decided JA is in fact guilty.


I think the reason that people got angry wasn't because he'd decided that JA was guilty, but that there was nothing to be guilty of i.e. that the type of rape alleged wasn't rape at all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> GG's comments were a problem because they went beyond supporting Assange to describing rape* as "poor sexual etiquette".
> 
> 
> *In the case of Assange, obviously that's still at the point of allegation only.


 
not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).

the argument behind no-platforming him is that these views reveal him to be a predator who it is unsafe to have at student union events


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

I don't think I've _ever_ 'gained explicit verbal consent'!!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think I've _ever_ 'gained explicit verbal consent'!!


 
here i'm not even joking, if you were to say that around large numbers of the young 'left' movement (NUS, anarchist/socialist/whatever organisations) you would probably be accused of rape


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).
> 
> the argument behind no-platforming him is that these views reveal him to be a predator who it is unsafe to have at student union events


Well the video's here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...gations-nothing-but-bad-sexual-etiquette.html

I'm not saying that no platforming him was a great idea, btw. But his comments on that video drew very well deserved censure afaic.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).
> 
> the argument behind no-platforming him is that these views reveal him to be a predator who it is unsafe to have at student union events



So politics replaced by hysterical moralising, revolutionary desire to engage with the world replaced with creating the illussion of "safe spaces" and the reactionary politics that entails. 

Fuck it, im off to get pissed to celebrate my bday and getting a minimun wage job, ill probably go to one of those unsafe nightclubs, though id be surprised if there are any women there as they are so obviously sexist.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> here i'm not even joking, if you were to say that around large numbers of the young 'left' movement (NUS, anarchist/socialist/whatever organisations) you would probably be accused of rape


 
Well, there should be one along in a minute...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

at occupy there was a fuck of a lot of white middle class men telling everyone what to do and expecting the women to do the washing up.  is this what this thread is about?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> at occupy there was a fuck of a lot of white middle class men telling everyone what to do and expecting the women to do the washing up.  is this what this thread is about?



Occupy was full of muppets though.


----------



## Random (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).


 If soneone's said yes once, they've said yes to anything.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Random said:


> If soneone's said yes once, they've said yes to anything.


 
What if they haven't even 'explicitly, verbally' said yes once?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> at occupy there was a fuck of a lot of white middle class men telling everyone what to do and expecting the women to do the washing up. is this what this thread is about?


Really?


----------



## Random (Oct 2, 2012)

Hopefully most of us know where to draw the line between taking non-verbal cues and taking advantage of someone. In general, it's easier to avoid misunderstandings if both participants are conscious.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Hopefully most of us know where to draw the line between taking non-verbal cues and taking advantage of someone. In general, it's easier to avoid misunderstandings if both participants are conscious.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> at occupy there was a fuck of a lot of white middle class men telling everyone what to do and expecting the women to do the washing up. is this what this thread is about?


 
If I neglect to do the washing up, my other half calls me a lazy cunt. 

Challenging bullshit behaviour is obviously important but the idea that people need a specialised vocabulary to do it seems like a very "activist" way of going about it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Point about the AF meeting, i'm going to ask them for a copy of the discussion document, i'm hoping that the blurb was just poorly written, suggesting as it does that this might represent a new start point for the AF rather than just a debate, because even if there is significant section of the (new?) membership taking this seriously then the AF would be going backwards. I'm not convinced that they are, but will read the document. I'm coming round to nice one's point above from when the thread first started that this might be coming in off the back of new set of young anarchists who haven't seen the sort of class struggles that the older generation have and that formed their politics and so the new set concentrate on pointing their fingers inwards (iyswim).


 
An Anarchist Federation member over on libcom finally gave a straight, non-shifty, answer:

"there's no AF position on this stuff or anything like that. There's an ongoing discussion about it, some AF members find the privilege to be a useful concept in understanding oppression, others disagree."

So, it doesn't look as if the AF have decided to actually declare themselves American style liberal identity politics fruitloops quite yet, but it does look as if there is a "significant section of the membership taking this seriously".


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Hopefully most of us know where to draw the line between taking non-verbal cues and taking advantage of someone. In general, it's easier to avoid misunderstandings if both participants are conscious.


 
I don't know the details of the particular case, since I don't find gossip about specific individuals edifying on the whole, I was just responding to the description of GG as disagreeing that JA was guily of rape because explicit verbal consent had not been gained.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Hopefully most of us know where to draw the line between taking non-verbal cues and taking advantage of someone. In general, it's easier to avoid misunderstandings if both participants are conscious.


 
i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms



Thats the thing with a gamble, it either goes very very well or very very bad and if you are going to take it with someone you barely know the odds are not so in your favour.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms


 
Yep, but it depends.

Woken up on a Sunday morning by your lovely girlfriend giving you a blowjob?  Nice one.

Woken up during the night because same girlfriend is drunk and just wants to use you as a dildo so she could get off?  Not so good.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms


 
And that's down for the people involved to decide, not other people arguing the toss. If one couple are okay with one sort of practice, that doesn't mean that other people are - or should be - by default. That's one of the points in this debate that's pissing a lot of people off. That a lot of people are saying "I'd have been okay with that" or "doesn't sound like rape to me" or "other people like being woken up by sex." Those are an awful lot of generalisations that don't take into consideration the feelings of the people who were actually involved in that one case at that particular time or the precise circumstances that none of us on the outside can possibly know.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Fuck off with the Assange stuff all of you. There are enough threads about him. This is a thread about anarcho-liberalism.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Thats the thing with a gamble, it either goes very very well or very very bad and if you are going to take it with someone you barely know the odds are not so in your favour.


 
not disagreeing with you, but back to Galloway i think all his comments showed were that he was an arsehole who was wading without any tact or thought into a minefield of an area.. not that he'd got the pathological patriarch disease and wouldn't be safe around women


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Fuck off with the Assange stuff all of you. There are enough threads about him. This is a thread about anarcho-liberalism.


 
Discussions have a way of meandering. I'm sure other topics will arise in due course.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And that's down for the people involved to decide, not other people arguing the toss. If one couple are okay with one sort of practice, that doesn't mean that other people are - or should be - by default. That's one of the points in this debate that's pissing a lot of people off. That a lot of people are saying "I'd have been okay with that" or "doesn't sound like rape to me" or "other people like being woken up by sex." Those are an awful lot of generalisations that don't take into consideration the feelings of the people who were actually involved in that one case at that particular time or the precise circumstances that none of us on the outside can possibly know.


 
It does mean though, that being woken up by sex in and of itself does not constitute rape.

Like I said before, I haven't read all the gossip, but if that's all that GG said then this looks like a bit of a storm in a tea cup.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And that's down for the people involved to decide, not other people arguing the toss. If one couple are okay with one sort of practice, that doesn't mean that other people are - or should be - by default. That's one of the points in this debate that's pissing a lot of people off. That a lot of people are saying "I'd have been okay with that" or "doesn't sound like rape to me" or "other people like being woken up by sex." Those are an awful lot of generalisations that don't take into consideration the feelings of the people who were actually involved in that one case at that particular time or the precise circumstances that none of us on the outside can possibly know.


 
as i say above, i agree with you on that, and that's why Galloway was being a tosser, but i was trying to use it to display the power that the identity politics clique now have over - for example - NUS


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Discussions have a way of meandering.


 
I know. That's why I'm asking you all to fuck off with the Assange stuff now, to one of the other half million threads about him, before this discussion becomes yet another rehearsal of that same discussion.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms


 
Wow, are you joking?
Every single damn thing tactile or even potentially sexual be asked clearly before proceeding at all times.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Fuck off with the Assange stuff all of you. There are enough threads about him. This is a thread about anarcho-liberalism.


I wish you'd set out the ground rules before uberdog started holding up GG as an example of victim of manarchist politics.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Exhibit A)


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Wow, are you joking?
> Every single damn thing tactile or even potentially sexual be asked clearly before proceeding at all times.


 
And the missing word is?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wish you'd set out the ground rules before uberdog started holding up GG as an example of victim of manarchist politics.


 
Not being psychic, I didn't know in advance that someone was going to weep at the feet of the Martyr George. Now that such weeping has commenced though, it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to ask both sides to keep that particular row to one of the endless threads about that particular row.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not being psychic, I didn't know in advance that someone was going to weep at the feet of the Martyr George. Now that such weeping has commenced though, it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to ask both sides to keep that particular row to one of the endless threads about that particular row.


Fair enough!


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

I hate this word already.  I seriously hope it doesn't catch on.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I hate this word already. I seriously hope it doesn't catch on.


 
As if 'hipster' wasn't enough.

Though 'anarcho-liberalism' is new to me, too.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I hate this word already. I seriously hope it doesn't catch on.


 
Personally, I'd make using the phrase "check your privilege" an instant expulsion offence if the Anarchist Federation ever took the unusual decision to put me in charge of their organisation.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Not being psychic, I didn't know in advance that someone was going to weep at the feet of the Martyr George. Now that such weeping has commenced though, it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to ask both sides to keep that particular row to one of the endless threads about that particular row.




no-one's weeping - i was actually laughing originally. two forces i have no sympathy for eating one another.

i do think the Assange case is relevent to this though, because at the heart of this identity crap bollocks it's all about sex. sexual identity, sexual abuse, etc... basically everyone is a sexual victim of some kind other than straight white men. mixed in with this is a completely subjective idea of self-definition. there is no objective truth, or at least the objective truth is made from the subjective perspective of a sexual victim.

the point about Galloway was the he tried to disagree with the subjective perspective of a pre-determined sexual victim in favour of a straight white guy. regardless of what he said or whether or not it was right - none of that was important in why he was no-platformed. he was no platformed _because_ he disagreed, not because of why - same goes for Tony Benn


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> It does mean though, that being woken up by sex in and of itself does not constitute rape.
> 
> Like I said before, I haven't read all the gossip, but if that's all that GG said then this looks like a bit of a storm in a tea cup.


 
I don't think it's just the GG stuff though. It came on the back of an endless stream of shit from plenty of other people, and it's somewhat not surprising that a 'personality' like GG saying something similar would be the thing that broke the camel's back.

I'd also say that while it's perfectly true to say that in and of itself, as you say, being woken up by sex does not necessarily constitute rape, many are using that as a way to completely disregard the idea that _it ever could_. And that's the problem. Just because, as I said, one couple in one set of circumstances might see it as part of their consensual sexual relationship, it's perfectly possible for the same act to have a completely different meaning in another context with another couple. So this isn't about saying "being woken up by sex = rape," this is about saying that it can be - as can any other kind of sexual behaviour, awake or not - and much of the anger seems to stem from people outright coming out and saying "nope, not rape, I should know, my girlfriend wakes me up with blowjobs regularly."


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i do think the Assange case is relevent to this though, because at the heart of this identity crap bollocks it's all about sex.


 
It isn't really. The particular identity politics discourse we are talking about here has its origins in race.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It isn't really. The particular identity politics discourse we are talking about here has its origins in race.


 
It might have its origins in race, but it appears to be being used in a feminist framework now.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

that's as may be, 'manarchism' isn't about race though


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It might have its origins in race, but it appears to be being used in a feminist framework now.


Otherwise, presumably, it'd be called Ranarchism. Thus pissing everyone off even more.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> And the missing word is?


 
*must* . Everything must be asked. You can't ask if someone is asleep. That's it. Galloway knew what he was doing - sorry if this is old hat.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

'whitearchists'


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't think it's just the GG stuff though. It came on the back of an endless stream of shit from plenty of other people, and it's somewhat not surprising that a 'personality' like GG saying something similar would be the thing that broke the camel's back.
> 
> I'd also say that while it's perfectly true to say that in and of itself, as you say, being woken up by sex does not necessarily constitute rape, many are using that as a way to completely disregard the idea that _it ever could_. And that's the problem. Just because, as I said, one couple in one set of circumstances might see it as part of their consensual sexual relationship, it's perfectly possible for the same act to have a completely different meaning in another context with another couple. So this isn't about saying "being woken up by sex = rape," this is about saying that it can be - as can any other kind of sexual behaviour, awake or not - and much of the anger seems to stem from people outright coming out and saying "nope, not rape, I should know, my girlfriend wakes me up with blowjobs regularly."


 
I think it is precisely this _lack of nuance_ that gets people's back up about "Manarchism".

Perhaps because it seems to be creating simple checklists about complex human interactions...


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 2, 2012)

Also - forgive me for stating the obvious, but how mental is it that Manchester AF would do a checklist of privilege and not even mention class?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'd also say that while it's perfectly true to say that in and of itself, as you say, being woken up by sex does not necessarily constitute rape, many are using that as a way to completely disregard the idea that _it ever could_.


 
That seems equally bizarre, as if to say it's only rape if you get started while the person is awake.
It's as bizarre as the 'short skirt' or the 'she came to my flat of her own accord' defences, and doesn't look to me like the description of what GG said, which, again, I don't know in full but seemed to hinge on explicit verbal consent.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It might have its origins in race, but it appears to be being used in a feminist framework now.


 
It's being used across all forms of identity politics now, by useless liberals. But it has its origins in race and so, Das Uberdog's contention that this stuff is all ultimately about sex isn't quite right.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Regardless of the 'proper' politics of it all, I don't think it's surprising that privilege is a popular concept, if you try to imagine for a second what it might be like to feel a constant tide of shit coming at you, whereby men in the media, in government, in politics, and even in your own political organisations, keep telling you what you are allowed to view as rape or not (for example, since we were talking about Assange). It might not be particularly useful in the long run, and it might even be harmful in terms of identity politics, but it seems to be, in part, a way of grabbing onto something - anything - that can give you back a little bit of agency, and trying to combat something that is equally as harmful.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but neither does letting the first wrong carry on shitting all over you. So what's the answer? I'm not arguing that the rather narrow obsession with 'privilege politics' should be supported, but rather that it's an understandable tool people are utilising since there doesn't appear to be anything else. Clearly if there are other options, they need to be made more accessible.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it is precisely this _lack of nuance_ that gets people's back up about "Manarchism".
> 
> Perhaps because it seems to be creating simple checklists about complex human interactions...


I must admit that I've only just started reading the first of the checklists from the AFED website, so it might be a bit early to comment. But so far it does seem to be stating a lot of the obvious.

Mind you, the other way of looking at it is that if the obvious needs stating, maybe it's not so obvious at all.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 2, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Also - forgive me for stating the obvious, but how mental is it that Manchester AF would do a checklist of privilege and not even mention class?


especially as class is comfortably the privilege most abused by left-wing activists, male or female.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

sihhi said:


> *must* . Everything must be asked. You can't ask if someone is asleep. That's it. Galloway knew what he was doing - sorry if this is old hat.


 
Do both partners need to ask out loud or just the strongest?
If it's not obvious which is the strongest do you have to have a fight first to find out?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> That seems equally bizarre, as if to say it's only rape if you get started while the person is awake.
> It's as bizarre as the 'short skirt' or the 'she came to my flat of her own accord' defences, and doesn't look to me like the description of what GG said, which, again, I don't know in full but seemed to hinge on explicit verbal consent.


Leave it with the Assange stuff, pls, or go and watch the video I linked to or something.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

even the racial underpinnings have been swamped by sexualised elements - like in one of revol69's posts earlier, the woman dressed up as a native American is apparently not only mocking their culture but more importantly, sexualising it


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Leave it with the Assange stuff, pls, or go and watch the video I linked to or something.


 
I was answering VP, who's rattled your cage?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

This identity politics stuff is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand you've got certain people refusing to be defined by their sexuality or gender, and then you've got people, in some cases the same people, telling everyone that because they're white or male or whatever that they are by nature oppressive towards others and that they are powerless to change their ways of their own free will.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> even the racial underpinnings have been swamped by sexualised elements - like in one of revol69's posts earlier, the woman dressed up as a native American is apparently not only mocking their culture but more importantly, sexualising it


 
I think that there's a good argument that the image is sexualising native americian indian culture (and is adding to the completely fucked up visual barrage of imagery of idealised women in the media).

Blaming the model in the picture ("but this DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON") completely ignores the processes behind this though.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> even the racial underpinnings have been swamped by sexualised elements - like in one of revol69's posts earlier, the woman dressed up as a native American is apparently not only mocking their culture but more importantly, sexualising it


I'm still not sure if that was meant to be a pisstake or not. In the context of her arguing with revol, was she just going completely overboard to prove a point and provide some lols, or was she deadly serious in which case, eek.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

it's a good joke if it's a joke


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> That seems equally bizarre, as if to say it's only rape if you get started while the person is awake.
> It's as bizarre as the 'short skirt' or the 'she came to my flat of her own accord' defences, and doesn't look to me like the description of what GG said, which, again, I don't know in full but seemed to hinge on explicit verbal consent.


 
I think it was more that he was saying that this poor man is being villified for nothing more than what amounts to 'poor sexual etiquette' and doing so in a way that suggested that he, and others, were the arbiters of what rape was or wasn't, and that the alleged victims were getting their knickers in a twist about absolutely nothing. I saw it not so much as being about him necessarily sticking up for Assange, nor that he was saying 'she asked for it,' but that he gets to define whether a woman can feel like she has been raped or not.

Tbf it's all a fucking messy business now, with various arguments in support of him often jumping around illogically between saying the women made it all up; they didn't make it up but it's not rape, I should know because I understand what is and isn't rape better than you; and focusing on the Sweden-US extradition thing and why he isn't being questioned in London, and thus tacitly agreeing there is a case to be heard since the allegations have been made. I say illogically, because sometimes the same person will use all three arguments in the same conversation.

And again, to the cause of the anger: for women watching all this play out, who have been victims of sexual assault or who are very aware of the shaming and blaming that goes on every day wrt it, it's a very, very high profile example of how the women who allege abuse are so often the very last people who matter in these cases. In that context, it's very easy to understand why it's an emotive issue.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think it was more that he was saying that this poor man is being villified for nothing more than what amounts to 'poor sexual etiquette' and doing so in a way that suggested that he, and others, were the arbiters of what rape was or wasn't, and that the alleged victims were getting their knickers in a twist about absolutely nothing. I saw it not so much as being about him necessarily sticking up for Assange, nor that he was saying 'she asked for it,' but that he gets to define whether a woman can feel like she has been raped or not.
> 
> Tbf it's all a fucking messy business now, with various arguments in support of him often jumping around illogically between saying the women made it all up; they didn't make it up but it's not rape, I should know because I understand what is and isn't rape better than you; and focusing on the Sweden-US extradition thing and why he isn't being questioned in London, and thus tacitly agreeing there is a case to be heard since the allegations have been made. I say illogically, because sometimes the same person will use all three arguments in the same conversation.
> 
> And again, to the cause of the anger: for women watching all this play out, who have been victims of sexual assault or who are very aware of the shaming and blaming that goes on every day wrt it, it's a very, very high profile example of how the women who allege abuse are so often the very last people who matter in these cases. In that context, it's very easy to understand why it's an emotive issue.


 
Thanks - good reply (and apols to cesare for narkiness - it's not something I was up to speed on, but was just reacting to another poster's description - it all sounds like a right old mess).


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Occupy was full of muppets though.


 
identity politics


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> it's a good joke if it's a joke


Especially if it infuriated revol.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

White privilege is not being quizzed on the history of the NHL every time you say that you like hockey.





Fozzie Bear said:


> Also - forgive me for stating the obvious, but how mental is it that Manchester AF would do a checklist of privilege and not even mention class?


 

They don't want class to be mentioned. If they did it might reveal family connections and excessive wealth locked up for a rainy day.
(Not exclusive to Manchester or anarchists).

More generally: What does 'male privilege' means above sexism and male chauvinism?
What does 'manarchism' mean above sexism and male chauvinism within the anarchist movement?
What does 'white privilege' mean above racism? 
It's almost as if a grouping of people are inventing a new term just to make them smarter than others.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Regardless of the 'proper' politics of it all, I don't think it's surprising that privilege is a popular concept... ...it seems to be, in part, a way of grabbing onto something - anything - that can give you back a little bit of agency, and trying to combat something that is equally as harmful.


 
I quite agree with you here. I don't think it's inexplicable or baffling that this stuff will have a resonance for some people and will seem useful to them, for pretty good reasons. I just think that its surface utility hides a lot of actively harmful political assumptions, so that adopting it not only doesn't fix the problems it was intended to fix but creates new ones.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

sihhi said:


> White privilege is not being quizzed on the history of the NHL every time you say that you like hockey.
> 
> 
> They don't want class to be mentioned. If they did it might reveal family connections and excessive wealth locked up for a rainy day.
> ...


 
I think in that case, the 'privilege' part of the equation is meant as a way to explain or understand _why_ a person's position in society at any one moment might make them blind to the plight of those they are sexist/racist/whatever towards. So it's saying, "there is sexism, and this (the 'privilege') is why."

But yes, I'd agree that there can certainly be an element of claiming superiority and _worthiness_ by creating a name for something and then staking ownership to the terms of its application.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I quite agree with you here. I don't think it's inexplicable or baffling that this stuff will have a resonance for some people and will seem useful to them, for pretty good reasons. I just think that its surface utility hides a lot of actively harmful political assumptions, so that adopting it not only doesn't fix the problems it was intended to fix but creates new ones.


It's as if no lessons were learned from some of the adverse consequences that arose from "multiculturalism" and it all feels a bit retro - a sudden transportation back into second wave feminism.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> If I neglect to do the washing up, my other half calls me a lazy cunt.
> 
> Challenging bullshit behaviour is obviously important but the idea that people need a specialised vocabulary to do it seems like a very "activist" way of going about it.


 
yeah, but people need to frame it that way sometimes.  white male privilege is pretty real*, and if that privilege allows them to frame their activism in some macho heroic way that ignores the day-to-day realities of running a camp (for example) and the women are left to do the unglamourous dirty work then whose change is it?

my activism doesn't include cleaning up people's shit because they're too self-important or lazy to concern themselves with it.  i am involved in politics because i want a better world, not the same one run by different people, which is what a certain type of male activist is aiming for - if my mother, daughter, girlfriend still gets to live in a world where they're not respected equally then what's my incentive?

*unless you're a white male, of course.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Especially if it infuriated revol.



Nah its no joke, she just shared it, i wasnt arguing with her. She's obsessed with "community" and queer theory, into Butler but ztill spouts the shite shot through with essentialism. In short a middle class academic poser.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

manarchists are just a current incarnation of good old chauvanism that has always infected movements because we are brought up in a chauvenist environment and some people don't question that, or don't consider that they are chavuanists.  and will shout you down if you say otherwise.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I quite agree with you here. I don't think it's inexplicable or baffling that this stuff will have a resonance for some people and will seem useful to them, for pretty good reasons. I just think that its surface utility hides a lot of actively harmful political assumptions, so that adopting it not only doesn't fix the problems it was intended to fix but creates new ones.


 
And I agree. Quite apart from anything else, it's often used (not by everyone, I must add, but by a fair few) as a way of shutting down discussion immediately. Being shouted at to "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE" isn't exactly going to enamour someone to 'the feminist cause' or any other cause for that matter. But, I'm wary of suggesting everyone is doing that, because they're not, and there are plenty of incredibly well-meaning people for whom this idea of privilege is their first encounter with some sort of politics. That it's so incredibly popular across the internet (you can't move on tumblr for it) shows that for a lot of people it's probably their only contact point with thinking about inequality, disenfranchisement, and whatever. As a starting point, it's not necessarily a completely bad one. At least it _is_ a starting point; the problem is with how to get people to move beyond it to a more sophisticated analysis. I'd argue that just as people shouting "check your privilege" can be alienating and shut down debate, so too can dismissing a whole swathe of tentatively politically-engaged people just because they're 'doing it wrong.'


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Nah its no joke, she just shared it, i wasnt arguing with her. She's obsessed with "community" and queer theory, into Butler but ztill spouts the shite shot through with essentialism. In short a middle class academic poser.


That's a pity.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

to be honest i reckon that CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE should be an entry point into trying to formulate a better world.  for all of us.  we need to check our assumptions and understand that our experiences are not universal.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's a pity.


 
It is also a good indicator of how mental some of this stuff is that we had to get revol to confirm whether or not it was a joke.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 2, 2012)

I've only ever been told to "check my privilege" once. For describing Sarah Palin as a "loon".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's as if no lessons were learned from some of the adverse consequences that arose from "multiculturalism" and it all feels a bit retro - a sudden transportation back into second wave feminism.


 
To be honest, I've never liked that periodisation of feminism. It's too obviously polemical, a rhetorical advice used by some mostly younger elements of the feminist movement to portray the ideas of older feminists (and other younger feminists) as old hat and out dated. There hasn't ever been a "third wave" of feminism in the sense of a mass movement upsurge, and most, though not quite all, of the distinctive positions associated with the "third wave" could also be found amongst elements of the "second".

And anyway, those old hat outdated second wavers knew how to write a polemic without mincing their words, which will always endear a political movement to me.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's as if no lessons were learned from some of the adverse consequences that arose from "multiculturalism" and it all feels a bit retro - a sudden transportation back into second wave feminism.


 
I think the reason for that is what was touched on above, when someone suggested a new generation of anarchists who haven't dealt with the class struggles the previous generation had to.

The internet is making it very easy for otherwise disengaged people to get access to these ideas, and there's a huge element of politicisation (albeit around these identity politics) that's happening for the first time amongst teens, and those in their 20s and beyond, as a result. They haven't been through the 2 usual ways these kind of things happen: 1) either experiencing it first hand by being an activist during the various waves of feminism; or 2) learning about the various waves at university, and planting your flag in the soil of whichever you believe more worthy by the end of it. They are experiencing a political education through communities of people who are all doing the same thing.

After class was firmly stamped out as an issue* by the glorious 1980s clusterfucks (politically and culturally), a new generation grew up being even less politically engaged than before, and with seemingly no need to be so. We all know the origins of identity politics, though, so no need to go over them. But the point being, they are now all flooding back to politics, in one way or another, and this kind of identity politics is the easiest - and most obvious, and most comfortable and acceptable to capital - way of doing that. Ultimately I think it's counter-productive to broadly slag them all off and then disregard them because they're doing it wrong, because then you've lost them forever. It seems to me more useful to understand why it's a starting point for them, and then encourage something more.

*I'm not saying it actually stopped being an issue, but that everyone was told it was no longer an issue, and that was internalised to a degree.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> I've only ever been told to "check my privilege" once. For describing Sarah Palin as a "loon".



What was your privilege, basic reasoning skills?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> to be honest i reckon that CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE should be an entry point into trying to formulate a better world. for all of us. we need to check our assumptions and understand that our experiences are not universal.


 
Yebbut ... I think it's counter productive to do much of it, especially when class doesn't seem to enter the equation here.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> What was your privilege, basic reasoning skills?


 
Mental health privilege.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Mental health privilege.


Yeah, that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And I agree. Quite apart from anything else, it's often used (not by everyone, I must add, but by a fair few) as a way of shutting down discussion immediately. Being shouted at to "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE" isn't exactly going to enamour someone to 'the feminist cause' or any other cause for that matter. But, I'm wary of suggesting everyone is doing that, because they're not, and there are plenty of incredibly well-meaning people for whom this idea of privilege is their first encounter with some sort of politics. That it's so incredibly popular across the internet (you can't move on tumblr for it) shows that for a lot of people it's probably their only contact point with thinking about inequality, disenfranchisement, and whatever. As a starting point, it's not necessarily a completely bad one. At least it _is_ a starting point; the problem is with how to get people to move beyond it to a more sophisticated analysis. I'd argue that just as people shouting "check your privilege" can be alienating and shut down debate, so too can dismissing a whole swathe of tentatively politically-engaged people just because they're 'doing it wrong.'


 
I think that this is an important point. The only quibble I'd have with it is that there's a distinction between analysing and consequently being very hostile to a set of political ideas and thinking that the way to deal with someone who is "tentatively politically- engaged" is to snarl at them and tell them they're a liberal fool. Even if they are a liberal fool (and there are few of us who weren't fools of some description).

Here for instance, we aren't talking about some random teenager on the internet who has been unlucky enough to first encounter a liberal "privilege theory" critique of sexism or some other kind of inequality, but about a bunch of members of the Anarchist Federation, who really don't have that excuse.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

Oh and that image i posted isnt an isolated thing, my ex used to show me masses of ONTD threads that were absolutely fixated on similar notions of identity.

I think this rise identity politics is in part a response to the break down in social solidarity and rise of individualised consumption since the eighties. The hipster obsession with authenticity could also be understood in this way, not to mention it acting as a form of accumulating cultural capital as a response to large swathes of the middle class being proletarianised.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think in that case, the 'privilege' part of the equation is meant as a way to explain or *understand why* a person's position in society at any one moment might make them blind to the plight of those they are sexist/racist/whatever towards. So it's saying, "there is sexism, and this (the 'privilege') is why."
> 
> But yes, I'd agree that there can certainly be an element of claiming superiority and _worthiness_ by creating a name for something and then staking ownership to the terms of its application.


 
But that's what Marxist feminism and Marxist anti-racism can do. Privilege analysis fails to make any meaningful explanations.
Instead we get a litany of racist things and sexist things - large and small - dumped together perpetuated by a groups defined solely by their white-ness and man-ness - with virtually zero explanation.

Here's one example 

http://thisiswhiteprivilege.tumblr.com/

Things there are entirely worthy of observation and opposition. Agreed. We could call it 'stop racism' or 'examples of everyday racism' instead by calling it white privilege, it works only to confuse those who are white and at ask risk of having their kids centres shut down and job cuts etc who think straight away 'My family is white, I'm not privileged. WTF. What a load of bull'.

That's the only application I can see it having in the real world. I don't see it as a non-white project trying to motivate other foreign non-white people to stand together and fight white racism.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yebbut ... I think it's counter productive to do much of it, especially when class doesn't seem to enter the equation here.


 
Thing is, there _is_ quite a bit about class out there when people are talking about privilege, just that it's not being used as the main issue, but one of many. The link isn't being made to the actual system of capitalism as helping perpetuate all of these various inequalities and 'privileges,' but nevertheless, when you look at the individual (and yes, that they are all individual accounts is a problem here) accounts of people 'recognising privilege' and talking about how it affects them, class plays a part in that.

Whatever the whole Occupy thing may or may not have achieved, one thing it has done is put the idea of inequalities of wealth back on the table, even if it's not always in a very sophisticated way (and even if so much of the mainstream use of it is in terms of the poor, squeezed middle class, bless their little cotton socks). In a way, even the presence of Mitt the Shit in the presidential race is serving to keep it an issue. But, of course, it's stopping massively short of any kind of systematic analysis and/or criticism of the capitalist system, but that's not to say it can't be used to gently steer the debate and consciousness in that direction.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> To be honest, I've never liked that periodisation of feminism. It's too obviously polemical, a rhetorical advice used by some mostly younger elements of the feminist movement to portray the ideas of older feminists (and other younger feminists) as old hat and out dated. There hasn't ever been a "third wave" of feminism in the sense of a mass movement upsurge, and most, though not quite all, of the distinctive positions associated with the "third wave" could also be found amongst elements of the "second".
> 
> And anyway, those old hat outdated second wavers knew how to write a polemic without mincing their words, which will always endear a political movement to me.


When I say "a sudden transportation back into second wave feminism" I wasn't criticising what was happening during the 60s and 70s. I don't think there was a viable alternative then, and I think a lot was achieved. However, it did bring with it a whole set of other consequences that pretty much laid the foundation of multicuralism and identity politics. What I intended to convey was that the concept of "manarchism" seems to hark back to the 80s.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Oh and that image i posted isnt an isolated thing, my ex used to show me masses of ONTD threads that were absolutely fixated on similar notions of identity.
> 
> I think this rise identity politics is in part a response to the break down in social solidarity and rise of individualised consumption since the eighties. The hipster obsession with authenticity could also be understood in this way, not to mention it acting as a form of accumulating cultural capital as a response to large swathes of the middle class being proletarianised.


 
'Authenticity' bullshit makes me want to smash things.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yebbut ... I think it's counter productive to do much of it, especially when class doesn't seem to enter the equation here.


 
perhaps.  we don;t want to be self-flagatting (booo hooo i was born a white man etc) but my recent experiences with activists on occupy led me to believe that there are a lot of white men who have never learnt about the privileged voice and believe that all people's societal experiences and influences should be weighted the same.  "if they've got a problem with me talking why don't they say so in the open where we can discuss it?"


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

That thisiswhiteprivilege.tmblr is just embarrassing.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Oh and that image i posted isnt an isolated thing, my ex used to show me masses of ONTD threads that were absolutely fixated on similar notions of identity.
> 
> I think this rise identity politics is in part a response to the break down in social solidarity and rise of individualised consumption since the eighties. The hipster obsession with authenticity could also be understood in this way, not to mention it acting as a form of accumulating cultural capital as a response to large swathes of the middle class being proletarianised.


 
actually, i agree with this to a certain extent.  identity politics are going to come from a world in which we are all demographics to be sold something.  but identity is important to people's experience of their lives.  we need to recognise without reducing all activism from solidarity and class.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> That thisiswhiteprivilege.tmblr is just embarrassing.


 
i reckon we could all find examples that fit with our experiences.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Thing is, there _is_ quite a bit about class out there when people are talking about privilege, just that it's not being used as the main issue, but one of many. The link isn't being made to the actual system of capitalism as helping perpetuate all of these various inequalities and 'privileges,' but nevertheless, when you look at the individual (and yes, that they are all individual accounts is a problem here) accounts of people 'recognising privilege' and talking about how it affects them, class plays a part in that.


 
Well, yes, and it tends to be through the lense of "classism", which is an actively misleading way of looking at class.

It stems from the flattening effect of "privilege theory", it's complete inability to deal with the specificity of different forms of oppression in different places and different times. It's particularly jarring when they try to fit class into the model, but the crudeness of the one size fits all approach also does damage to an understanding of sexism, racism etc.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

i don't think that 'white male privilege' does exist, certainly not in the internalised pathological sense that the current 'left' seem to think. socialisation between different demographic groups obviously varies, and yeah some blokes still would expect their woman to fetch the sandwich or SHUT THE HELL UP WHEN I'M TALKING TO THE GUYS but broadly i don't think problems of 'patriarchy' should be individualised and blamed on someone's sex - they might just be an arsehole irrespective of that.

i think the response to someone expecting what you might call their 'privilege' should be to deny it to them. if there's some mouth in a meeting spouting off and not listening to anything anyone else then call them out for that, don't start going off on one about them 'checking their privilege' or such bollocks... the manarchist and new identity politics view treats sexism like a pyschological disorder, inherent in all 'cis males', and represented not by their actual conscious views or opinions but more _betrayed_ through their body language, the use of certain 'banned words' (or failure to keep up with the latest politically correct lingo) or whether or not, as a self-identified victim of some sort, the accuser feels in any general way 'uncomfortable' in their presence.

part of the other problem with linking personal behaviours with sex is that you end up chucking out the baby with the bathwater. a lot of the complaints you hear on the 'scene' about 'manarchists' and 'brocialists' are related to things which should be aspired towards, like being assertive and confident - arguing strongly and, sometimes, even aggressively for your point of view, etc. all essential traits if you take your politics seriously.

and not least to mention that, almost universally, the most avid proponents of this form of politics are charlatans, who've never suffered in their lives and just enjoy having an oppression stick to beat people who disagree with them. identity politics serves to maintain this brattish clique of victim-Royalty in a pampered state of emotional indulgence through fear of being declared unsympathetic to their awful middle-class life predicaments.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 2, 2012)

sihhi said:


> But that's what Marxist feminism and Marxist anti-racism can do. Privilege analysis fails to make any meaningful explanations.
> Instead we get a litany of racist things and sexist things - large and small - dumped together perpetuated by a groups defined solely by their white-ness and man-ness - with virtually zero explanation.
> 
> Here's one example
> ...


 
Exhibit A on why this shit is dumb:



> White privilege is when the same people who said 4 years ago that we must “respect the president” are the ones most disrespectful to a black president.


 
Yes, because when one criticises the most powerful man in the world, the head of a global empire and the world's biggest economy, a Harvard-university educated lawyer and son of an academic, you speak from a position of privilege, on account of the enhanced status you get from being a white person, regardless of your actual role in society.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> actually, i agree with this to a certain extent. identity politics are going to come from a world in which we are all demographics to be sold something. but identity is important to people's experience of their lives. we need to recognise without reducing all activism from solidarity and class.


 
I think that's an important point. The ways in which people as individuals encounter the world are very much influenced by the various identities they are told they possess (or feel they possess). These identities might often be false constructs, but nevertheless they are how people experience the world. That can't be ignored. So the problem is how to allow for people to challenge how they are marginalised and oppressed in terms of these various identities, within the framework of a class/capital analysis as well. Someone mentioned that there already exists Marxist feminism, and so on. But it's clearly not something that has made itself accessible to people who are looking for a way to stop being treated like shit. And it seems like it can be something that's sidelined while the business of 'real' Marxism (or whatever) goes on, practiced by those who don't need to worry about the feminist side of it (i.e. the men). There needs to be space (yes yes) for feminism, anti-racism, etc., to be practiced _within_ the normal business of Marxism, as a part of it, rather than a sideline affair, and I think that might be why privilege becomes a buzzword or buzz-concept - as a way of trying to get people to think about all the things at the same time. Not saying it works as intended, mind. Just that that might be part of why it's there.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

i think the emphasis should be placed on being right rather than appealing to people in some personal need of political salvation... most of the identity politics recruits i've seen are definitely not in it for the long term. not high quality...


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> 'cis males'


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think the emphasis should be placed on being right rather than appealing to people in some personal need of political salvation... most of the identity politics recruits i've seen are definitely not in it for the long term. not high quality...


 
Shouldn't the emphasis be on helping people become 'high quality' as you call it, rather than declaring 'these people are not worthy of practicing any kind of politics?'


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> perhaps. we don;t want to be self-flagatting (booo hooo i was born a white man etc) but my recent experiences with activists on occupy led me to believe that there are a lot of white men who have never learnt about the privileged voice and believe that all people's societal experiences and influences should be weighted the same. "if they've got a problem with me talking why don't they say so in the open where we can discuss it?"


Do you think that the activists on occupy are a representative sample of left wing political activists?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


>


http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org/1588929.html


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the emphasis be on helping people become 'high quality' as you call it, rather than declaring 'these people are not worthy of practicing any kind of politics?'




i'd never declare anyone not worthy, what i was trying to say is that i wouldn't see the explosion of identity politics as any symptom of increasing politicisation amongst the young... i really think it's paper thin, and it works because it indulges certain people rather than that it helps them or challenges them in a productive way at all


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org/1588929.html


 
OK, I understand the reasons behind it.  But shouldn't this argument be switched?  Rather than assign labels to those who do not current have them, we should remove them from those that have.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Do you think that the activists on occupy are a representative sample of left wing political activists?


 
is there such thing?  most of them would describe themselves as left-wing.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'd never declare anyone not worthy, what i was trying to say is that i wouldn't see the explosion of identity politics as any symptom of increasing politicisation amongst the young... i really think it's paper thin, and it works because it indulges certain people rather than that it helps them or challenges them in a productive way at all


 
I'd accept that. But moving on from there, isn't it better to try to bring them into the fold, than ensure they never engage in a meaningful way in the future? I'm not suggesting it should be the entire workload of the left, trying to 're-educate' the world's privileged (heh) identity-politickers, but that when encountering them, rather than always giving them short shrift and consigning them to the good old dustbin of history, encouraging them to not be quite so useless. They're not all just kids indulging themselves. And even when they are, giving up on any hope that they might be able to become politicised kind of makes a mockery of the idea of ever hoping to change anything in a worthwhile fashion. A small but committed vanguard aren't going to be able to change our economic and political system. People have got to be on board too, right?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org/1588929.html


 
Yes, at first it doesn't _seem_ to reek with privilege, but notice how autistic cyborgs have been completely written out of existence.

_Very_ insidious piece of crypto-fascism if you ask me.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> is there such thing? most of them would describe themselves as left-wing.


Is there such a thing as a representative sample? Hopefully. I'm asking whether Occupy provided it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> OK, I understand the reasons behind it. But shouldn't this argument be switched? Rather than assign labels to those who do not current have them, we should remove them from those that have.


Ideally. But how are you going to do that bar banning labels?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

On 'cultural appropriation' - it happens all the time.
The question is, does it further a specific agenda. (On native Americans, the type of parties that white university fraternities and sororities do is often racist Cowboys and Indians, Militia and Indians - and should be opposed), but native American dress itself doesn't do that.

For instance at Bristol Vegfest, a doner kebab was made out of Western meat substitute, making it go all soggy and slop downwards (see picture). Taking an authentically Anatolian dish and making it a superior vegetarian (Western), healthy non-fat non-foreign version.







Should the Lebanese and Turks unite in declaring:



No. No one gives a. No one should. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Whether they should or not, people look for something to identify with. I'm not sure how you go about dealing with that. While people are treated like shit for being one thing or another, it's obvious some of them will flock to others like them, who experience the same things. Clearly it can end up being a self-perpetuating circle jerk that stops engaging with anything else outside of itself, though. But how do you deal with the fact that people like to identify with something, and will form groups around areas of their lives they encounter discrimination through?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> Yes, at first it doesn't _seem_ to reek with privilege, but notice how autistic cyborgs have been completely written out of existence.
> 
> _Very_ insidious piece of crypto-fascism if you ask me.


*handwave*


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ideally. But how are you going to do that bar banning labels?


 
By making them irrelevant.  Why should I have to self-identify as cis?  If I slept with a man once, should I then have to revise my label?  It's pointless.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> By making them irrelevant. Why should I have to self-identify as cis? If I slept with a man once, should I then have to revise my label? It's pointless.


OK ... how are you going to make them irrelevant?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'd accept that. But moving on from there, isn't it better to try to bring them into the fold, than ensure they never engage in a meaningful way in the future? I'm not suggesting it should be the entire workload of the left, trying to 're-educate' the world's privileged (heh) identity-politickers, but that when encountering them, rather than always giving them short shrift and consigning them to the good old dustbin of history, encouraging them to not be quite so useless. They're not all just kids indulging themselves. And even when they are, giving up on any hope that they might be able to become politicised kind of makes a mockery of the idea of ever hoping to change anything in a worthwhile fashion. A small but committed vanguard aren't going to be able to change our economic and political system. People have got to be on board too, right?


 
best that you can bring any individual into the fold! but i wouldn't even have a marginal tactical bias towards them, personally... i think that working class culture in this country is, broadly, tolerant and friendly and actually far further to the left than many in these groups, often with a far simpler and more progressive understanding of equality (i.e. actual equality rather than a complicated web of competing 'oppressions' with variegated privileges). i think the whole idea leads people off down completely the wrong path


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> best that you can bring any individual into the fold! but i wouldn't even have a marginal tactical bias towards them, personally... i think that working class culture in this country is, broadly, tolerant and friendly and actually far further to the left than many in these groups, often with a far simpler and more progressive understanding of equality (i.e. actual equality rather than a complicated web of competing 'oppressions' with variegated privileges). i think the whole idea leads people off down completely the wrong path


 
So are these groups mainly middle-class, d'ya reckon?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Further to my last post, if left groups, Marxism, whatever, doesn't seem to be addressing things like racism or feminism, and in fact sometimes actually don't challenge them when they occur in their own ranks, why would you expect someone to _not_ go off and find their own group of people who will address it?

I'm not saying they _should_. What _should_ happen is racism and feminism etc. should be a part of a Marxist analysis as par for the course, and not as some kind of special adjunct to it. Identity politics as they are configured currently are a product of capitalism, and without systematically analysing the various ways in which people are marginalised, and then linking it to a broader (or more detailed, whichever way you want to look at it) understanding of class and capital relations, you end up ignoring a very real reality (tautology, apols) that exists for so many people. And while that happens, they'll just go elsewhere.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Clearly it can end up being a self-perpetuating circle jerk that stops engaging with anything else outside of itself, though.


 
worse than that is when it does engage with the outside world, and imposes its mad and often vindictive ideas on people who have nothing to do with it... not to bring it up again but they are in charge of NUS these days as the GG controversy shows


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> *handwave*


 
*jazz hands*


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> OK ... how are you going to make them irrelevant?


 
I don't have a good answer to that.  But I'm pretty sure more labels isn't the way to do it.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> So are these groups mainly middle-class, d'ya reckon?


 
completely and utterly.  not that i'd condemn them completely on that basis, as i've said on here before i'm from a middle-class background and i still take me seriously - but yeah they are, and with very little reach to working class people ime.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> worse than that is when it does engage with the outside world, and imposes its mad and often vindictive ideas on people who have nothing to do with it... not to bring it up again but they are in charge of NUS these days as the GG controversy shows


 
Saying something like that though, you're making as much a 'them and us' thing as they are (or might be). "But they did it first." Who cares? What happens now?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

Baudrillard had a great quote about identity, "Identity is a dream pathetic in its absurdity. You dream of being yourself when you have nothing better to do."

Which explains why middle class liberal art students are obsessed.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> completely and utterly. not that i'd condemn them completely on that basis, as i've said on here before i'm from a middle-class background and i still take me seriously - but yeah they are, and with very little reach to working class people ime.


I suppose this goes back to me asking el if Occupy were representative. It strikes me that Occupy were mainly composed of middle class activists (but that was just a general impression of mine, I wasn't there) & now you are saying that these groups are mainly composed of middle class activists.

So my next point, is to ask whether these groups are checking their own privilege every time they ask someone else to check theirs? Is there any irony to all of this at all?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> completely and utterly. not that i'd condemn them completely on that basis, as i've said on here before i'm from a middle-class background and i still take me seriously - but yeah they are, and with very little reach to working class people ime.


How would they even sustain it if they did? I mean university-educated, privileged-background, relatively prosperous (or maybe slumming it), how do you tell (a) working-class white men that _they_ are the privileged ones and (b) working-class women that your struggle is their struggle?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I don't have a good answer to that. But I'm pretty sure more labels isn't the way to do it.


You could always try and normalise it by calling everyone you disagree with a retard or similar derogatory epithet? (Not a suggestion either that you do this, or that you do).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Baudrillard had a great quote about identity, "Identity is a dream pathetic in its absurdity. You dream of being yourself when you have nothing better to do."
> 
> Which explains why middle class liberal art students are obsessed.


 
Let's not forget the legions of w/c folks buying into various brands and images, through aspirational shit and so on. The very, very poor can't, because they simply don't have money to spend on anything other than food, heating, whatever. Or maybe they don't have a roof over their head at all. But then do you start differentiating between the worthiness of the working class who are very, very poor, and the working class who can afford a 50 inch tv? It's no longer enough to say the middle class are the only ones who buy into this identity shenanigans.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Incidentally, I love the way that both Fez and 8ball interpreted me posting a link as anything more than explanation.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Saying something like that though, you're making as much a 'them and us' thing as they are (or might be). "But they did it first." Who cares? What happens now?




they created the 'them and us' - they're actually impossible to work with. believe me, ruffle too many feathers and you'll be branded a racist/sexist/misogynist before you can say 'how'd you do'...

this thing goes deep. i know of some scary instances.

the most recent was about a long-standing second generation member of the SWP in Sheffield - Let's call him L. his dad's been in the party since god knows when, and the guy himself was always seen as charismatic, eloquent and well read (total gobshite). he was also pretty insecure and clingy. he dated an SWP member from down south for about a year, before she dumped him.

L's ex bitched to some of the SWP girls in Sheffield about how L was clingy and possessive, and basically a chore to go out with. completely separately of L's ex, these two SWP girls decided that his conduct in that relationship proved him to be a sexist and chauvanist (claims further evidenced by his confidence at public speaking and other 'masculine' traits). they complained to the central party that L was predatory and a dangerous sexist; despite L's ex having no part in these accusations whatsoever, L was called to London for a disciplinary. even by the kangaroo court that met him in London, he could not be found 'guilty' of the accusations set against him, however the panel obviously wanted to do something. at Marxism that year, L was confronted in public by Charlie Kimber who screamed at him calling him a sexist and demanding to know how he had the gall to show his face, before pulling in some heavies to physically remove L from the event. L's dad, longstanding member and Trade Unionist resigned demanding an apology, which has not been heeded. let me repeat, L's ex never played any part in the official accusations made by the party.

there's literally no reasoning with this kind of attitude, and believe me i've tried!


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

No bloody idea how to investigate and effectively deal with *allegations* of <whatever> abuse too (as illustrated above). Another bugbear of mine.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> they created the 'them and us' - they're actually impossible to work with. believe me, ruffle too many feathers and you'll be branded a racist/sexist/misogynist before you can say 'how'd you do'...
> 
> this thing goes deep. i know of some scary instances.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure how that one example should be used to tar every person who ever decides to be a part of a group identified under the banner of 'identity politics.' Which is pretty much what you're saying. None of 'them' can be reasoned with.

Not to mention it's a shit example anyway. In matters of personal relationships, everything is a case of a disgustingly messy he said she said, where friends get involved sticking up for their mates, and sometimes some dark shit can happen. It's not an example of how terribly evil all teh feminists are.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

i have more examples, an anarchist who was put on 'trial' for sexism after sleeping with loads of girls on the 'scene' in London and not calling them back was another shocker. he's been banned from freedom bookshop. a friend of mine, former Afed, has been effectively excluded from anarchist/autonomist events in Manchester for 'Manarchism'. whilst i was in the SWP i would always be coming up against untraceable accusations of sexism which had been flung around the gossip circuit in my absence. if you're ever, for any godforsaken reason, taken to the 'socialist memes caucus' on facebook you'll see that the AWL, SWP and SP 'yoof' have all traded in their old theoretical spats for accusations of sexism and misogyny and anti-working class attacks on 'lad culture'.

it's appalling, and needs to be purged.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2012)

can\t read the phrase 'check your privilege' without mentally adding 'daddy-o'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> they created the 'them and us' - they're actually impossible to work with. believe me, ruffle too many feathers and you'll be branded a racist/sexist/misogynist before you can say 'how'd you do'...


 
I'm not sure that this example is particularly closely linked to the issue of "privilege theory", other than in the broadest sense that they both have something to do with identity politics. In fact, this sounds centrally like an unfortunate combination of rumours running out of control, an ill-judged attempt to "do the right thing" and the SWP's typical autocratic style merging to unfortunate effect.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i have more examples, an anarchist who was put on 'trial' for sexism after sleeping with loads of girls on the 'scene' in London and not calling them back was another shocker. he's been banned from freedom bookshop. a friend of mine, former Afed, has been effectively excluded from anarchist/autonomist events in Manchester for 'Manarchism'. whilst i was in the SWP i would always be coming up against untraceable accusations of sexism which had been flung around the gossip circuit in my absence. if you're ever, for any godforsaken reason, taken to the 'socialist memes caucus' on facebook you'll see that the AWL, SWP and SP 'yoof' have all traded in their old theoretical spats for accusations of sexism and misogyny and anti-working class attacks on 'lad culture'.
> 
> it's appalling, and needs to be purged.


There's more than a hint of personal gripe starting to tinge your posts. Banned from Freedom bookshop, eh? Does that happen a lot?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i have more examples, an anarchist who was put on 'trial' for sexism after sleeping with loads of girls on the 'scene' in London and not calling them back was another shocker. he's been banned from freedom bookshop. a friend of mine, former Afed, has been effectively excluded from anarchist/autonomist events in Manchester for 'Manarchism'. whilst i was in the SWP i would always be coming up against untraceable accusations of sexism which had been flung around the gossip circuit in my absence. if you're ever, for any godforsaken reason, taken to the 'socialist memes caucus' on facebook you'll see that the AWL, SWP and SP 'yoof' have all traded in their old theoretical spats for accusations of sexism and misogyny and anti-working class attacks on 'lad culture'.
> 
> it's appalling, and needs to be purged.


 
1) The Socialist Memes Caucus is shit, but most of it is shit because it's made up of not particularly funny in jokes rather than because it's dominated by privilege theory gibberish.

2) Attacks on "lad culture" are not automatically "anti-working class", as anyone who has ever encountered a bunch of public school rugby players out on the town or a university rowing club can tell you.

3) I can safely say that the Socialist Party's near imperviousness to intellectual fashion means that we won't have to deal with this shit for another about twenty years!

4) Are you talking about those couple of dudes who were the centre of twitter lefty-spats for a while recently in your examples above? Because I certainly got the impression that there was more to that than someone not calling back a couple of girls he'd slept with.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Incidentally, I love the way that both Fez and 8ball interpreted me posting a link as anything more than explanation.


 
Well, I inferred you are for the use of that term due to the content of the link you provided.  You could have gone with the Wikipedia page, which is neutral on the matter, if you didn't want me to infer a position.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

the privilege theory ran deep behind the whole incident, as the whole 'privilege' concept allowed for L's personal relationship to somehow be claimed as the public property of two caustic busybodies. L refused to 'check his privilege', he was confident and a gobshite, his 'masculine' traits were seen as 'threatening' to the 'safe space' of the local SWP branch and he was raked through the muck for it on the basis of nothing more the say-so of two capricious girls.

i have no love for the guy, we never got on and ironically he used to encourage these kinds of batshit attitudes - very big on post-68 identity politics leftism and multiculturalism (which all provide elements of the 'privilege' theoretical base).

here's the socialist memes caucus btw...

http://www.facebook.com/socialistmemecaucus

this stuff is all they talk about


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i have more examples, an anarchist who was put on 'trial' for sexism after sleeping with loads of girls on the 'scene' in London and not calling them back was another shocker. he's been banned from freedom bookshop. a friend of mine, former Afed, has been effectively excluded from anarchist/autonomist events in Manchester for 'Manarchism'. whilst i was in the SWP i would always be coming up against untraceable accusations of sexism which had been flung around the gossip circuit in my absence. if you're ever, for any godforsaken reason, taken to the 'socialist memes caucus' on facebook you'll see that the AWL, SWP and SP 'yoof' have all traded in their old theoretical spats for accusations of sexism and misogyny and anti-working class attacks on 'lad culture'.
> 
> it's appalling, and needs to be purged.


 
Whether this is a true estimation or not, you are starting to sound in these past 2 posts like you have a bit of a personal 'thing' against this whole issue.

It's also worth nothing that there would, broadly speaking, be no need for 'accusations of misogyny' if there was no misogyny. Whether x, y or z actually happened as you describe or not, be careful of not coming across as if you're implying "women make all this shit up."

In terms of 'lad culture,' most of the stuff I've seen has been against typically middle class 'lads' at universities being stupid wankers. All this, "but it's just a bit of banter, love" stuff, the stuff that plays rape for laughs, and so on. Be careful not to make links where there might not be any.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> There's more than a hint of personal gripe starting to tinge your posts. Banned from Freedom bookshop, eh? Does that happen a lot?


yes it's personal, i've been wading through this bullshit for the past 4 years. some of the worst human beings i've ever encountered have been through the identity politics circuit.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> racism and feminism etc. should be a part of a Marxist analysis as par for the course, and not as some kind of special adjunct to it. Identity politics as they are configured currently are a product of capitalism, and without systematically analysing the various ways in which people are marginalised, and then linking it to a broader (or more detailed, whichever way you want to look at it) understanding of class and capital relations, you end up ignoring a very real reality (tautology, apols) that exists for so many people. And while that happens, they'll just go elsewhere.


 
I agree entirely feminism should be, as should racism. i think every single 'marxist' attempt failed so catastrophically because of the intense chauvinist sexism and the wish to support the nuclear family. in st petersburg and moscow it was male engineering workers angry because their wages had been equalised to that of women (who had less strenuous work), it was one group of workers against another fighting extra rations to look after their own special nuclear family vs other families. In the countryside it was land to the peasant - meaning in effect the peasant extended family with the males at the head. in spain it was, in many areas, women in the fields and men with the guns on the front line, allowing some uncontrolled republican units to requisition unfairly from female collectives.
the struggle for gender equality has broadly stopped still and gone backwards in a few spots for the past 30 years for the majority of working women.

on racism as black asian and other immigrants from the past are 'incorporated' and it is rarer to be afraid of street abuse (unless you're wearing a headscarf or a prominent religious beard), new sub-national groups are formed against which racism is carried out: latvian workers - male+female escaping 30% unemployment, young somali youths, chavs, estate dwellers (40 years ago elite universities did parties etc on themes of men vs women, with vicious sexism, now it's teenage mothers http://www.cherwell.org/news/2010/10/29/-quot-disgusting-quot-initiations-condemned , potential nhs tourists in elderly people from abroad, 40 years ago if you look at NF and other publications it's all about how jews continue pornography and have child abuse rings, now it's muslims see white girls as easy meat... that's main message they draw)...
the ways of chauvinism are changed it's no longer we give civilization to the world, it's we are the most tolerant in the world (well done us, we're special, the same rules international law, not blowing up children from drones don't apply to us)... etc

*However* a line must be drawn 'carnism' its privilege counterpart 'vegan shaming' as a concept is just crazy.

See examples here:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/carnist or  http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/carnism

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/vegan-shaming

'Thinism' and its privilege counterpart is borderline too.

http://thisisthinprivilege.tumblr.com/


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> 4) Are you talking about those couple of dudes who were the centre of twitter lefty-spats for a while recently in your examples above? Because I certainly got the impression that there was more to that than someone not calling back a couple of girls he'd slept with


 
i don't think i am - certainly not in respect to my second example (the guy from Manc)


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Well, I inferred you are for the use of that term due to the content of the link you provided. You could have gone with the Wikipedia page, which is neutral on the matter, if you didn't want me to infer a position.


Oh yeah, wiki's always my first reference point and I never assume that people are quite capable of looking at wiki themselves. The point of the link was to show where the terminology was coming from in the context of manarchistic politics and in response to a facepalm smiley that could have meant anything.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I agree entirely feminism should be, as should racism. i think every single 'marxist' attempt failed so catastrophically because of the intense chauvinist sexism and the wish to support the nuclear family. in st petersburg and moscow it was male engineering workers angry because their wages had been equalised to that of women (who had less strenuous work), it was one group of workers against another fighting extra rations to look after their own special nuclear family vs other families. In the countryside it was land to the peasant - meaning in effect the peasant extended family with the males at the head. in spain it was, in many areas, women in the fields and men with the guns on the front line, allowing some uncontrolled republican units to requisition unfairly from female collectives.
> the struggle for gender equality has broadly stopped still and gone backwards in a few spots for the past 30 years for the majority of working women.
> 
> on racism as black asian and other immigrants from the past are 'incorporated' and it is rarer to be afraid of street abuse (unless you're wearing a headscarf or a prominent religious beard), new sub-national groups are formed against which racism is carried out: latvian workers - male+female escaping 30% unemployment, young somali youths, chavs, estate dwellers (40 years ago elite universities did parties etc on themes of men vs women, with vicious sexism, now it's teenage mothers http://www.cherwell.org/news/2010/10/29/-quot-disgusting-quot-initiations-condemned , potential nhs tourists in elderly people from abroad, 40 years ago if you look at NF and other publications it's all about how jews continue pornography and have child abuse rings, now it's muslims see white girls as easy meat... that's main message they draw)...
> ...


 
No doubt it manifests in some truly weird ways. But (and I'm not suggesting you're doing this) the presence of the 'less relevant' (whoever decides what that is, that's the problem with drawing lines) stuff shouldn't be used as a way to wave it all to the side.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> yes it's personal, i've been wading through this bullshit for the past 4 years. some of the worst human beings i've ever encountered have been through the identity politics circuit.


I can see why you feel so strongly about it. I haven't had the experiences you have; my experiences (not of manarchism, but of sexism) have been different but they also contribute to my perception.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> the privilege theory ran deep behind the whole incident, as the whole 'privilege' concept allowed for L's personal relationship to somehow be claimed as the public property of two caustic busybodies.


 
Was any of this actually expressed in terms of "privilege" or "privilege theory"? I strongly suspect that it wasn't, even if some of the identity politics style assumptions were broadly similar.




			
				Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> this stuff is all they talk about


 
It really isn't. It's mostly shit jokes about the AWL, shit jokes about Ed Miliband, shit jokes about imperialism and some shit jokes about Galloway. Only the Galloway stuff goes remotely near the sort of thing you are complaning about.

It's not that I think you are wrong about there being a bit of a revival of certain types of identity politics, and that this has had at least some influence over younger members of political groups, but I think that you are considerably overstating the case. I suspect, for instance, that there about four people in my local Socialist Party branch who know what "privilege theory" is, and all would be hostile to it in so far as they could muster the energy to give a shit.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Is there such a thing as a representative sample? Hopefully. I'm asking whether Occupy provided it.


 
i can't answer that because i'm not sure that i have enough data.  there were lots of nice people of all sorts and lots of idiots of even greater variety, and the social mix was kind of what you'd expect in london political terms i suppose, _mostly _young, _mostly _white, middle class but not overwhelmingly etc , and whenever someone tried to pigeonhole the movement's politics "anarchist / anti-capitalist / liberal" arguments started up.

the anarchist booksale is whiter, maler, and probably more middle class than the occupy site.  although the council isn't sending homeless people to the bootsale for lols.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Incidentally, I love the way that both Fez and 8ball interpreted me posting a link as anything more than explanation.


 
Not sure what this means.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> i can't answer that because i'm not sure that i have enough data. there were lots of nice people of all sorts and lots of idiots of even greater variety, and the social mix was kind of what you'd expect in london political terms i suppose, _mostly _young, _mostly _white, middle class but not overwhelmingly etc , and whenever someone tried to pigeonhole the movement's politics "anarchist / anti-capitalist / liberal" arguments started up.
> 
> the anarchist booksale is whiter, maler, and probably more middle class than the occupy site. although the council isn't sending homeless people to the bootsale for lols.


Cheers, el.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

Thin privilege? 

They need to look up the meaning of the word privilege.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2012)

> *However* a line must be drawn 'carnism' its privilege counterpart 'vegan shaming' as a concept is just crazy.
> 
> See examples here:
> 
> ...


http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/vegan-shaming

Is that a real thing?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> Not sure what this means.


It's my "more than a handwave" response (once I'd stopped being annoyed) to you going on about bloody cyborgs.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

My favourite is non-otherkin privilege, the unfair privilege inherent in not thinking you're an elf.

(Seriously. Google it).


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Is that a real thing?


You obviously haven't been paying attention to what happens on the veggie threads on urban


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's my "more than a handwave" response (once I'd stopped being annoyed) to you going on about bloody cyborgs.


 
You lost me at the first *handwave* tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2012)

let them try to follow a religious diet for a couple of years and see what happens - they wouldn't last five minutes  not that i was much better tbf


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

The working class/middle class thing about who should be doing what kind of politics interests me.

It's quite often the case, that just because someone happens to be middle class and they want to be involved in some sort of politics, they are automatically bad, clearly don't have a clue what they're on about, and are part of the problem. Sure, lots of middle class people 'do politics wrong' but there are plenty of working class people who 'do politics wrong' too. You're not automatically better at sorting out what the best way to go about something is or what the most important issues are just because you're working class. Both groups (insofar as they are 'groups' at all) inhabit a specific set of circumstances that helps shape how they see the world, both are a part of the system, both have a stake in it, and just because one gets a rawer deal than the other (economically, and we can argue the toss in terms of other things re: 'identity politics' stuff) doesn't mean they have a preternatural affinity for being able to do 'authentic' politics.

There are a lot of middle class people in these occupy things, and in various lefty organisations. But rather than castigating them for being involved in some way (even if they sometimes 'do it wrong') how about trying to get more working class people involved _as well_.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My favourite is non-otherkin privilege, the unfair privilege inherent in not thinking you're an elf.
> 
> (Seriously. Google it).


 
oh for christ's sake, why can't these people just get a life?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My favourite is non-otherkin privilege, the unfair privilege inherent in not thinking you're an elf.
> 
> (Seriously. Google it).


Some of this stuff has got to be a piss-take, surely? I'd do it myself if I had the time.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 2, 2012)

Surely they should be called cis-kin?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The working class/middle class thing about who should be doing what kind of politics interests me.
> 
> It's quite often the case, that just because someone happens to be middle class and they want to be involved in some sort of politics, they are automatically bad, clearly don't have a clue what they're on about, and are part of the problem. Sure, lots of middle class people 'do politics wrong' but there are plenty of working class people who 'do politics wrong' too. You're not automatically better at sorting out what the best way to go about something is or what the most important issues are just because you're working class. Both groups (insofar as they are 'groups' at all) inhabit a specific set of circumstances that helps shape how they see the world, both are a part of the system, both have a stake in it, and just because one gets a rawer deal than the other (economically, and we can argue the toss in terms of other things re: 'identity politics' stuff) doesn't mean they have a preternatural affinity for being able to do 'authentic' politics.
> 
> There are a lot of middle class people in these occupy things, and in various lefty organisations. But rather than castigating them for being involved in some way (even if they sometimes 'do it wrong') how about trying to get more working class people involved _as well_.


It's not so much about who should be doing what, but observations about who's doing it.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My favourite is non-otherkin privilege, the unfair privilege inherent in not thinking you're an elf.


 
But if you _are_ an elf, wouldn't it be a disadvantage.

I've seen _Elf_, and he seemed to have a very happy childhood even though he erroneously thought he was an elf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2012)

there will be no revolution without sausage rolls


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> there will be no revolution without sausage rolls


 
Straight to the re-education camp for you.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Some of this stuff has got to be a piss-take, surely? I'd do it myself if I had the time.


 
Yes, some of it is indeed people taking the piss. Like the site run by the guy who claims to be oppressed because he "identifies" as a piece of toast.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, some of it is indeed people taking the piss. Like the site run by the guy who claims to be oppressed because he "identifies" as a piece of toast.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's also worth nothing that there would, broadly speaking, be no need for 'accusations of misogyny' if there was no misogyny. Whether x, y or z actually happened as you describe or not, be careful of not coming across as if you're implying "women make all this shit up."


 
'no smoke without a fire', the most infuriating rationale for anything ever! if you create a situation where aspersions and slander can be hurled without repurcussion, then aspersions and slander will be thrown. currently, the 'privilege' politics personalises itself to such an extent that even theoretically disagreeing with its precepts is seen by most of its adherents as being 'sexist' and, implicitly, personally threatening. as such, there is a culture of hyper-irrationality about any of these groups or any areas in which the ideas have taken hold. if you're of a certain disposition, the benefits of this environment are obvious. pick yourself an obscure, preferably 'new' identity clique with your own cultural oppression relatable and understandable only by you - you can now claim to be frightened or oppressed by all kinds of things that anyone who isn't you could never understand. not only this but you will be supported by a federal chain of other identity groups who will all agree that whatever it is you feel makes you 'sad' or otherwise 'put upon' is an immediate symptom of patriarchal oppression. anyone who doesn't understand is 'privileged' and, therefore, contemptible. if they're persistent in their disagreement, then they can easily be slandered as an actual physical threat. otherwise, if you are irreconcilably 'cis', you can still choose to 'sympathise' or be an 'ally' for one of these identities and feel their offence on their behalf - giving you some, if not all, of their authority. perhaps over time you will also be able to manoevre slowly into a vague 'queer' identity between cis and gay/trans and also persecute those who refuse to indulge your grossly inflated sense of self-entitlement.

shit floats.



> In terms of 'lad culture,' most of the stuff I've seen has been against typically middle class 'lads' at universities being stupid wankers. All this, "but it's just a bit of banter, love" stuff, the stuff that plays rape for laughs, and so on. Be careful not to make links where there might not be any.


 
the vast, vast bulk of it is all about feeling uncomfortable in shouty environments like football terraces or amongst boisterous 'lads' in pubs or on a night out


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's not so much about who should be doing what, but observations about who's doing it.


 
Yeah, and those observations are crucial in understanding who's engaging and who isn't, and why. But the way it's used is often as a sneering tool to automatically suggest that 'all these stupid, ineffective, wanky middle class students' clearly don't actually care about anything, and clearly couldn't possibly do any good, or do 'proper' Marxism, or whatever. It's just another way to shut people down.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, some of it is indeed people taking the piss. Like the site run by the guy who claims to be oppressed because he "identifies" as a piece of toast.


 
How many people would have to identify as a piece of toast before their grievance was recognised?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, some of it is indeed people taking the piss. Like the site run by the guy who claims to be oppressed because he "identifies" as a piece of toast.


 
Link?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2012)

very counterproductive in tackling actual prejudice as well ...


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yeah, and those observations are crucial in understanding who's engaging and who isn't, and why. But the way it's used is often as a sneering tool to automatically suggest that 'all these stupid, ineffective, wanky middle class students' clearly don't actually care about anything, and clearly couldn't possibly do any good, or do 'proper' Marxism, or whatever. It's just another way to shut people down.


I understand that it can be a sneering tool, but what I'm trying to do is understand where this is all coming from (as you say in your first sentence).

That's got to be the start of what, if anything, is appropriate as a response and to who.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Link?


mute-trans-demisex-anorex-toast.tumblr.com


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 2, 2012)

toast isn’t really ‘eaten’ its not really widespread knowlage but, when toasts have a relationship/partnership/friendship, they can join with the other, its the same as sex to a point but more of a joining of two people. like a fusion.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My favourite is non-otherkin privilege, the unfair privilege inherent in not thinking you're an elf.
> 
> (Seriously. Google it).


 
Some people just like to feel like victims and outcasts and no matter how inclusive you try to be they'll just think of some new and fucking stupid thing to be that you haven't got around to including yet. This sort of behaviour could be avoided by creating a single, unified policy of including everyone apart from self-satisfied attention seeking twats.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Some people just like to feel like victims and outcasts and no matter how inclusive you try to be they'll just think of some new and fucking stupid thing to be that you haven't got around to including yet. This sort of behaviour could be avoided by creating a single, unified policy of including everyone apart from self-satisfied attention seeking twats.


I think that one was probably a piss-take.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> I think that one was probably a piss-take.


 

Here's one I wrote ages ago, intended to be sent out on various email lists:




> I have decided that I am a giraffe, despite all evidence to the contrary. Anyone who adresses me as a human, or using human-specific pronouns, is henceforth a bastard and a bigot and an oppressor. I reserve the right to derail meetings and sabotage social situations in the event of anyone implying by thought or deed that I am not a giraffe. It is my intention to highlight the plight of giraffes such as myself throughout the world, even though I have no experience of said plight because I'm not actually a giraffe.
> 
> I hereby resolve to single-hoofedly ensure that all hierarchical relationships between humans and giraffes are dismantled in favour of a system where everyone behaves as I want them to because they're all shit scared that I'll start ranting on about how giraffist everyone is whenever I don't get my own way. Clearly, allowing non-giraffes to defend themselves against accusations of giraffism would be undemocratic and anthropocentric.
> 
> I suppose I could just admit that I'm a human and work to create a world where nobody judges people on whether they are human or giraffe, but that wouldn't get me as much attention. Better to insist that because I have certain attributes that might be associated with giraffes _according to the system of prejudices I claim to oppose, _that I must be a giraffe.


 
Naturally I never got around to sending it


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Here's one I wrote ages ago, intended to be sent out on various email lists:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gotta get with the yoot and start up your own giraffe-privilege tumblr site.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Gotta get with the yoot and start up your own giraffe-privilege tumblr site.


 
I'm hopelessly confused about what's a privilege and what isn't now...
Also, what are we going to call male monarchists now that "manarchist" is taken?

Are female anarchists now femarchists, famarchists, anarchi-sisters?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> I'm hopelessly confused about what's a privilege and what isn't now...
> Also, what are we going to call male monarchists now that "manarchist" is taken?
> 
> Are female anarchists now femarchists, famarchists, anarchi-sisters?


No point asking me, you'll have gleaned by now (I hope) that I'm really not up on all this stuff.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> No point asking me, you'll have gleaned by now (I hope) that I'm really not up on all this stuff.


 
I think I'm so far behind on this that I haven't even gleaned that yet.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The working class/middle class thing about who should be doing what kind of politics interests me.
> 
> It's quite often the case, that just because someone happens to be middle class and they want to be involved in some sort of politics, they are automatically bad, clearly don't have a clue what they're on about, and are part of the problem. Sure, lots of middle class people 'do politics wrong' but there are plenty of working class people who 'do politics wrong' too. You're not automatically better at sorting out what the best way to go about something is or what the most important issues are just because you're working class. Both groups (insofar as they are 'groups' at all) inhabit a specific set of circumstances that helps shape how they see the world, both are a part of the system, both have a stake in it, and just because one gets a rawer deal than the other (economically, and we can argue the toss in terms of other things re: 'identity politics' stuff) doesn't mean they have a preternatural affinity for being able to do 'authentic' politics.
> 
> There are a lot of middle class people in these occupy things, and in various lefty organisations. But rather than castigating them for being involved in some way (even if they sometimes 'do it wrong') how about trying to get more working class people involved _as well_.


 

Your first paragraph sets up a straw man and knocks it down ("You're not automatically better at sorting out what the best way to go about something is or what the most important issues are just because you're working class.") No one here has suggested this - could you point where anyone has even come close to that. You want to defend middle-class people in lefty organisations but no one is attacking them, I personally think they should become less middle-class if they're serious, give up some of their excess loot (and not just do it for a year a la Polly Toynbee). That would give greater space for working-class people. They should also not trample over working-class organisation and activity, smothering it with their vision of "what should be done", newspaper sales, 'you've been around campaigns long enough, most people decide to join a party' said by an organiser of the Socialist Party TM. [Hoarding their social capital not sharing it with others (we can afford plane tickets to visit students in quebec in struggle, we've already visited 8 different countries but let's go anyway, let's have a meeting far away in a big hall with an (admittedly small) entrance charge, instead of a cruddy hall but no entrance charge) 

I've experienced some little stuff - not as demeaning as life in workplaces or elsewhere- but i think for anyone from a tougher and harder course of life it would be worse and harder to bear: Looking down on people with X/Y/Z habits/experiences has come from middle-class people not working-class people: 'saying my family is excited about the new lidl' was a serious crime for some, being told you're being obtuse for questioning why x is the best person to speak to the media because (reasons later: given he has most experience, he's good with press statements), being told 'poor people can't afford to strike you have to concentrate on who can take action', being told in a severely harsh and bitter fashion you're mental for suggesting that some people have very good reasons for arsoning their school and that you don't they need to be placed in YOI (you get called middle-class and loving violence for the sake of it), being told 'really, is that true... you're making it up aren't ya' when you're honestly describing a detail of one of your parent's (poorer) life, but only when in passing describing something else). 

It must be *5x* times worse for women, if you've a child it must be like *10x* worse - with serious difficulties placed in the way of meaningful participation at every turn.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Let's not forget the legions of w/c folks buying into various brands and images, through aspirational shit and so on. The very, very poor can't, because they simply don't have money to spend on anything other than food, heating, whatever. Or maybe they don't have a roof over their head at all. But then do you start differentiating between the worthiness of the working class who are very, very poor, and the working class who can afford a 50 inch tv? It's no longer enough to say the middle class are the only ones who buy into this identity shenanigans.


What has this lifestylist anti consumer nonsense got to do with what I posted. Your characterisation of people who buy large tvs reads like something from the guardian weekend supplements, to argue its the same as identity politics is bullshit.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Most of the working class with 50 inch tellies stole them, anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> Are female anarchists now femarchists, famarchists, anarchi-sisters?


 
No, it's wrong to characterise people according to their gender. Unless they're men.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> _Let's not forget the legions of w/c folks buying into various brands and images, through aspirational shit and so on. The very, very poor can't, because they simply don't have money to spend on anything other than food, heating, whatever. Or *maybe they don't have a roof over their head at all. But then do you start differentiating between the worthiness of the working class who are very, very poor, and the working class who can afford a 50 inch tv*? It's no longer enough to say the middle class are the only ones who buy into this identity shenanigans._.


 
No to start differentiating like that would be a massive step backwards to suggest all homeless people are somehow oppressed by those who have residence-privilege (i.e. a roof over their heads) and to set up a movement against residencism.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

If you read back you'll see I didn't say anyone here was making these claims. I said it's something I'm interested in. If any one is making assumptions and big leaps, it's you. I was exploring the types of arguments and their implications that sometimes get made. When I said "but then do you start differentiating...." the implication was no, you don't. Not yes you should. I thought that was clear. I was merely giving voice to things I've noticed about some of the ways some people talk about middle class activists. If some of you want to assume it was an attack on anything you've said here, go right ahead and think that. You'll be wrong, but go right ahead.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> What has this lifestylist anti consumer nonsense got to do with what I posted. Your characterisation of people who buy large tvs reads like something from the guardian weekend supplements, to argue its the same as identity politics is bullshit.


 
My entire point was that buying into distinctions between classes that are set out by media or whoever is stupid. I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that I'm saying "omg there are worthy poor people and then there are those fake poor people who can afford to spend it all on fags." I was shining a light on that kind of harmful grouping between types of people who must be X because they 'fit the type.'


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> What has this lifestylist anti consumer nonsense got to do with what I posted. Your characterisation of people who buy large tvs reads like something from the guardian weekend supplements, to argue its the same as identity politics is bullshit.


To be fair, if you bring up Baudrillard you can fairly much predict that anyone that answers you might extend the metaphor using commodity and consumption.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> To be fair, if you bring up Baudrillard you can fairly much predict that anyone that answers you might extend the metaphor using commodity and consumption.


 
And Baudrillard's hardly the poster boy for a rigorous class politics.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Anyway, back on the original subject, something I wanted to mention earlier (but got waylaid), is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

Talking about how 'privilege theory' is all the rage, the term (and concept) of kyriarchy seems to be transplanting 'patriarchy' for some of them. I don't think anyone is necessarily suggesting patriarchy is a one-issue concept, and I've seen people arguing that patriarchy is perfectly capable of being used to describe a web of oppressions (they all being implicit in the idea of patriarchy anyway, class included) and it not just being shorthand for 'men oppressing women.' But nevertheless, the argument I've seen about calling it kyriarchy instead is that it draws attention to multiplicities of oppression, to make it more useful for everyone and not give it the automatic alarmist 'omg the wimminz are coming' ring to it (which I'm not sure it has anyway, but whatever).

Again, it's one of those things where I can see why they want to use the term, but it's another example of changing the vocabulary in the hopes that that's enough to change the problem itself. When it isn't.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And Baudrillard's hardly the poster boy for a rigorous class politics.


Well I think* that was partly Revol's point.


*Actually "hope" would be a better word as I'm crediting Revol with using Baudrillard not just to diss identity politics.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

I haven't heard the term Kyriarchy before. I need to do some reading.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> If you read back you'll see I didn't say anyone here was making these claims. I said it's something I'm interested in. If any one is making assumptions and big leaps, it's you. I was exploring the types of arguments and their implications that sometimes get made. When I said "but then do you start differentiating...." the implication was no, you don't. Not yes you should. I thought that was clear. I was merely giving voice to things I've noticed about some of the ways some people talk about middle class activists. If some of you want to assume it was an attack on anything you've said here, go right ahead and think that. You'll be wrong, but go right ahead.


 
VP, I misunderstood, I'm sorry, but it's hard to catch every rhetorical question in short internet posts.
I don't think any of the implications of anyone's posting here point to middle-class activists being unfairly described or put off from x or y.
I think 'privilege politics' is almost entirely a middle-class phenomenon. Black nationalist politics, a very different thing, that's still sort of there but seriously diminished and weakened. I think privilege politics' insights are often a poncy rehash of radical anti-racist politics, occasionally stupid, and, in the worst cases, outright crazy. They don't further action, they're often used for moralising individual purposes:- 'Check your privilege Luke..." says privilege-checked I.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

So "privilege politics" is almost entirely a middle-class phenomenon. Also almost entirely (a) 20s/30s? and (b) unaligned anarchists/activists?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Let's not forget the legions of w/c folks buying into various brands and images, through aspirational shit and so on. The very, very poor can't, because they simply don't have money to spend on anything other than food, heating, whatever. Or maybe they don't have a roof over their head at all. But then do you start differentiating between the worthiness of the working class who are very, very poor, and the working class who can afford a 50 inch tv? It's no longer enough to say the middle class are the only ones who buy into this identity shenanigans.


What has this lifestylist anti consumer nonsense got to do with what I posted. Your characterisation of people who buy large tvs reads like something from the guardian weekend supplements, to argue its the same as identity politics is bullshit.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> What has this lifestylist anti consumer nonsense got to do with what I posted. Your characterisation of people who buy large tvs reads like something from the guardian weekend supplements, to argue its the same as identity politics is bullshit.


You've already got a couple of replies to this.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

sihhi said:


> VP, I misunderstood, I'm sorry, but it's hard to catch every rhetorical question in short internet posts.
> I don't think any of the implications of anyone's posting here point to middle-class activists being unfairly described or put off from x or y.
> I think 'privilege politics' is almost entirely a middle-class phenomenon. Black nationalist politics, a very different thing, that's still sort of there but seriously diminished and weakened. I think privilege politics' insights are often a poncy rehash of radical anti-racist politics, occasionally stupid, and, in the worst cases, outright crazy. They don't further action, they're often used for moralising individual purposes:- 'Check your privilege Luke..." says privilege-checked I.


 
It's okay, rhetorical is difficult to get across in type, especially in an environment when people tend to expect direct argument as opposed to general musing and questions. It doesn't help that I sometimes have a habit of quoting a post for no other reason that it sparked off an idea in my head, and then talk about something tangentially related in reply, which I'm aware can sometimes come across as me directly using what I'm saying to counter what I quoted. Which isn't always the case. My mind jumps around a fair bit. I get a bit of flak for that in other places too. And for being too verbose. But that's another matter.

Anyway, I agree with you about identity/privilege politics. While many people who engage in it might think they are trying to be inclusive and get to the bottom of a messy tangle of various oppressions, it's very inward-looking, and ends up closing down much that's useful, and as a way of justifying the self, to an extent. The history of intersectional feminism, bell hooks and beyond, I suppose is part of it, and I think they'd do well to look at what was and wasn't achieved as a result, and of the problems with the various 'hierarchies of oppression' that grew out of it.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> I haven't heard the term Kyriarchy before. I need to do some reading.


 
Their follow up, 'Broken Wings' wasn't as good.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> ...it's another example of changing the vocabulary in the hopes that that's enough to change the problem itself. When it isn't.


 
What do you see the problem as being?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> The history of intersectional feminism, bell hooks and beyond, I suppose is part of it, and I think they'd do well to look at what was and wasn't achieved as a result, and of the problems with the various 'hierarchies of oppression' that grew out of it.




are there any good critical histories of this?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 2, 2012)

fair whack of manarchism on these boards tbh.   of course, the thing about patriarchal bullshit by those who should know better is that they generally don't realise they're doing it; that their opinions are independent of systemic sexism is not possible to them as they have rejected other aspects of the prevailing dogma, they preach equality in law but do not realise that their behaviour shows off ingrained patriachal behaviour.  this is why many are unwilling to hear it - they do not believe they are sexist, or that their behaviour is anything other than well intentioned.   my partner is a rad fem type, so obv i would be sympathetic to this type of idea or we'd never get along.  she finds that many women are drawn to her groups because they don't feel safe or empowered within mixed activist groups.  so there is a problem, unless they're all suffering from imaginary patriarchy.

and with my tuppence worth i'm leaving this thread for my own sanity.  ta ra.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

8ball said:


> What do you see the problem as being?


 
I'm referring quite generally there to the way some focus purely on language (and the control of it) as a way to solve social problems. In this case, I see how what I said could be taken two ways: 1) the possible 'problem' of the term patriarchy being seen by some as only referring to men's oppression of women, of which using kyriarchy instead hopes to clear up; 2) the bigger 'problem' of actual patriarchy and what it entails, i.e. as a system of power relations (again, speaking in broad terms), and that somehow using the term kyriarchy - which they think better describes the processes actually in play - will help combat it better than calling it patriarchy will.

The point I was trying to make was that changing what you call it might feel quite empowering, but too often it's used as the ends, rather than the means. "If we can control how we describe something, we have some control finally, right?" That's what I meant. Taking control of the terms of the debate, but only so you can continue debating, and not ever actually 'doing' anything.

I'm sorry if I'm not describing myself well enough.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 2, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> fair whack of manarchism on these boards tbh.   of course, the thing about patriarchal bullshit by those who should know better is that they generally don't realise they're doing it; that their opinions are independent of systemic sexism is not possible to them as they have rejected other aspects of the prevailing dogma, they preach equality in law but do not realise that their behaviour shows off ingrained patriachal behaviour.  this is why many are unwilling to hear it - they do not believe they are sexist, or that their behaviour is anything other than well intentioned.   my partner is a rad fem type, so obv i would be sympathetic to this type of idea or we'd never get along.  she finds that many women are drawn to her groups because they don't feel safe or empowered within mixed activist groups.  so there is a problem, unless they're all suffering from imaginary patriarchy.
> 
> and with my tuppence worth i'm leaving this thread for my own sanity.  ta ra.



Pussy whipped!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

good riddance


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Pussy whipped!


gayboy!!


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The point I was trying to make was that changing what you call it might feel quite empowering, but too often it's used as the ends, rather than the means. "If we can control how we describe something, we have some control finally, right?" That's what I meant. Taking control of the terms of the debate, but only so you can continue debating, and not ever actually 'doing' anything.
> 
> I'm sorry if I'm not describing myself well enough.


 
No, you're explaining it fine - was just wondering what your take on it was.


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 2, 2012)

The video was funny it had some resonance for me and my memories of the false 'right o'n men, who were just misogynist ball sacks attempting to get the actvist leg over and wrapping it up in Howard Zinn, Bakunin or Chomsky. The worlds full of them why would anarchism be different?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> are there any good critical histories of this?


 
Not sure really. Most of what I've read is the source stuff, hooks, then Patricia Hill Collins did a lot of the early intersectionality stuff. It's basically cogent stuff, all very obvious really, because it's clear that intersections of different things, like race, class, sexual orientation, whatever, will impact you in different ways at different times depending on who you are, what you are and where you are. The basic theory is sound, it's the applications, really, where you get into problems, of which this privilege theory and how it's playing out is one of them.

It's been a while since I was reading any of it, but there were different ways people interpreted how to think about it, from 'additive' models to 'hierarchies' of oppression and so on. During none of it was class put at the forefront, or rather, it wasn't really examined closely as a product of capitalism, but rather class was one aspect (it certainly wasn't absent). I could, however, just have been reading the wrong stuff. I didn't go massively deeply into it at the time.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> The video was funny it had some resonance for me and my memories of the false 'right o'n men, who were just misogynist ball sacks attempting to get the actvist leg over and wrapping it up in Howard Zinn, Bakunin or Chomsky. The worlds full of them why would anarchism be different?


It's the double bluff ones that piss me off


----------



## 8115 (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> So "privilege politics" is almost entirely a middle-class phenomenon. Also almost entirely (a) 20s/30s? and (b) unaligned anarchists/activists?


 
Is it? I was thinking about this earlier, in the context of this discussion.

Whatever field people are in nowadays, a basic understanding of equality/ diversity/ inclusion is taken to be a good thing. Children at school are taught not to discriminate or use discriminatory language. In science, female participation is beginning to be taken seriously. It's not controversial. But in the political arena, call it identity politics, or privilege and suddenly it seems to be. I don't really get it.

In my view it's about participation, being polite and respectful. I think people need to be careful with these concepts, but it doesn't mean they're not useful if you need to have a bit of a meta discussion or build a framework. Maybe they're just badly handled and badly used. I don't know. I don't have much contact with this sort of thing.

I'm surprised by how controversial this seems to be.

Although also, having said this, I'm not sure that making these things explicit is a sign of a healthy culture.  We live in interesting times, maybe,


----------



## Firky (Oct 2, 2012)

Got to page 6 and had enough. Viva la urban.

Remember the olympic opening ceremony thread when we all got along and didn't says stupid shit?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 2, 2012)

firky said:


> Got to page 6 and had enough. Viva la urban.


 
I never read all of long threads.    Just dip in and out for the bunfights.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

8115 said:


> Is it? I was thinking about this earlier, in the context of this discussion.
> 
> Whatever field people are in nowadays, a basic understanding of equality/ diversity/ inclusion is taken to be a good thing. Children at school are taught not to discriminate or use discriminatory language. In science, female participation is beginning to be taken seriously. It's not controversial. But in the political arena, call it identity politics, or privilege and suddenly it seems to be. I don't really get it.
> 
> ...


 
I might be wrong (I often am) but I think some of the 'controversy' side of it is couched in an understanding of the impact postmodernism had on politics, and the results of that we see today. So I don't think it's strictly a case of saying "pointing out that some people have a tougher time of it in X situation than others, because of their gender/ethnicity/orientation is a bad thing" because it's clearly not. My take on it is that it's more of a frustration that that tends to supersede a class-based politics that focuses on the systematic causes of various inequalities, and that broadly speaking identity politics has been taken up by 'the establishment' and used as a tool to sell us more stuff at the same time as keeping us divided. So it's not saying "don't be a feminist" but it's saying "don't be insular" - or something  Ensuring that there is feminist analysis in class politics, as well as that of race, disabled rights, whatever, is crucial, and it's often lacking (which is where the manarchism stuff comes in). Some think that privilege theory can help with that, and maybe it can to an extent, but there are dangers that it can be used to divide more than provide clarity. I see it more as ensuring you get it right, rather than saying don't do it at all. But I could be alone there, idk.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

firky said:


> Got to page 6 and had enough. Viva la urban.
> 
> Remember the olympic opening ceremony thread when we all got along and didn't says stupid shit?


That sounds as if you think this shouldn't be discussed?


----------



## Firky (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> That sounds as if you think this shouldn't be discussed?


 
I am sorry if it comes across like that, it wasn't supposed to. Just after that stuff with weeps and the WVM, story's battering on here and other recent stuff it just makes me frustrated that this kind of crap exists on an a forum that I thought knew better. It's sad that it is discussed IYSWIM, I am probably not explaining myself well.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

firky said:


> I am sorry if it comes across like that, it wasn't supposed to. Just after that stuff with weeps and the WVM, story's battering on here and other recent stuff it just makes me frustrated that this kind of crap exists on an a forum that I thought knew better. It's sad that it is discussed IYSWIM, I am probably not explaining myself well.


Those incidents throw this stuff into high relief of course. But I don't think refusing to engage with it is the answer, even if the result is a bit of discomfort all round.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> fair whack of manarchism on these boards tbh. of course, the thing about patriarchal bullshit by those who should know better is that they generally don't realise they're doing it; that their opinions are independent of systemic sexism is not possible to them as they have rejected other aspects of the prevailing dogma, they preach equality in law but do not realise that their behaviour shows off ingrained patriachal behaviour. this is why many are unwilling to hear it - they do not believe they are sexist, or that their behaviour is anything other than well intentioned. my partner is a rad fem type, so obv i would be sympathetic to this type of idea or we'd never get along. she finds that many women are drawn to her groups because they don't feel safe or empowered within mixed activist groups. so there is a problem, unless they're all suffering from imaginary patriarchy.


 
The problem with this line of argument is that the premise is accurate - ie that activists and activist groups don't exist outside of and above a sexist society, and this can lead to sexist behaviour. But the conclusions don't flow from it - ie therefore we need to import an incoherent and crude analysis of all oppression from American radical liberals.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Those incidents throw this stuff into high relief of course. But I don't think refusing to engage with it is the answer, even if the result is a bit of discomfort all round.


 
No, me either. Nothing ever changed from letting people get away with it without challenging things. Sometimes it all gets a _bit fucking much_ though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 2, 2012)

firky said:


> I am sorry if it comes across like that, it wasn't supposed to. Just after that stuff with weeps and the WVM, story's battering on here and other recent stuff it just makes me frustrated that this kind of crap exists on an a forum that I thought knew better. It's sad that it is discussed IYSWIM, I am probably not explaining myself well.


 
What incidents are you talking about? And what exactly about them makes what's being discussed here crap?


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

weepiper said:


> No, me either. Nothing ever changed from letting people get away with it without challenging things. Sometimes it all gets a _bit fucking much_ though.


I know


----------



## Firky (Oct 2, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Sometimes it all gets a _bit fucking much_ though.


 

Like water on a stone and it devalues the debate somewhat because people simply CBA to explain the same things again and again.


@nigel, I cited the incidents in the post you quoted.


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

firky said:


> Like water on a stone and it devalues the debate somewhat because people simply CBA to explain the same things again and again.
> 
> 
> @nigel, I cited the incidents in the post you quoted.


To be fair, this particular debate is about a phenomenon that we haven't really seen much of on the boards. It's an interesting discussion.


----------



## Firky (Oct 2, 2012)

Yeh, maybe I'd have picked that up if I read the thread instead of only half of it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 2, 2012)

firky said:


> Yeh, maybe I'd have picked that up if I read the thread instead of only half of it.


 
That should be urban's motto


----------



## cesare (Oct 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What incidents are you talking about? And what exactly about them makes what's being discussed here crap?


I think (and hopefully he'll put me right if I misrepresent him) that firky's feeling a bit dejected at some of the threads recently. There's also the possibility that he may have formed the impression in the first 6 pages that challenging sexism=identity politics and therefore not to be done anymore, and he thinks that's crap.

Edit @firky


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i have more examples, an anarchist who was put on 'trial' for sexism after sleeping with loads of girls on the 'scene' in London and not calling them back was another shocker. he's been banned from freedom bookshop.


 
I'm not going to get any further into this online, but if this is who i think it is then it was slightly more than sleeping with a few people and then not phoning them

edit - turns out not the same person


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms


 
perhaps on similar lines and apologies for bringing assange up again but i think this is important.

the accusation, is that after a night spent arguing about assanges demands to have sex without a condom the women then woke up to him having sex with her without a condom.  another allegation from the other woman is that assange, after being informed that any sexual relationship was over, got into bed  with her and started rubbing his naked cock up against her, that he had earlier ripped open a condom during sex for whatever his own bizarre reasons and that he held a woman down and attempted to penetrate her whilst she was struggling to break free

galloway called this bad sexual etiquette, he either didnt bother to learn the facts of what had been alleged or he is openly defending sexual abuse


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> perhaps on similar lines and apologies for bringing assange up again but


 
Don't apologise. Just do it in an appropriate thread.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

if it's relevent then it's relevent - i've already said why i thought it was related to the thread topic

ETA and to smokedout, i don't believe we are talking about the same person


----------



## smokedout (Oct 3, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Don't apologise. Just do it in an appropriate thread.


 
well its a counterpoint to the thread - one of the reasons this manarchist identity shit has emerged (or is gaining traction) is because of people (allegedly) like assange and the largely male only chorus of support he's received from galloway and many others

its the wrong response, politically and practically, but there is no doubt that there is a problem and that there dont seem to be many other solutions being proposed to address it has created a vacuum that this crap had moved into


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Had the issue of identity politics being a problem already started before this privilege theory/manarchism development? Or were  privilege theory/manarchism always what was meant by identity politics?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

'manarchism', as an insult, has been a product of 'privilege theory' - an attack against 'privileged' attitudes within the anarchist movement (though as noted, most of the left has an equivalent)


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> 'manarchism', as an insult, has been a product of 'privilege theory' - an attack against 'privileged' attitudes within the anarchist movement (though as noted, most of the left has an equivalent)


Yeah, I get that. I'm trying to understand when it started, and if it means the same/similar as identity politics.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yeah, I get that. I'm trying to understand when it started, and if it means the same/similar as identity politics.


 
as i say, it's a product - identity politics has slowly morphed from being mainly to do with ethnic identities (Nigel noted that earlier) to one which has its most active elements in sexual/culture politics

eta sorry, re-read your initial post and did misunderstand it


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 3, 2012)

To me it doesn't mean the same thing as identity politics; it is identity politics' way of describing sexism and/or non-feminists.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> as i say, it's a product - identity politics has slowly morphed from being mainly to do with ethnic identities (Nigel noted that earlier) to one which has its most active elements in sexual/culture politics
> 
> eta sorry, re-read your initial post and did misunderstand it


Did identity politics morph into this, or was it imported into a hiatus ... I suppose is what I'm asking.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Did identity politics morph into this, or was it imported into a hiatus ... I suppose is what I'm asking.


 
i think the left increasingly leant on identity politics as working class organisations declined, it's recruits increasingly came from those movements etc... i think it has been an evolution, but it appears to have accelerated in intensity and influence over the past 4-5 years (i don't remember coming across this stuff at all during the Stop the War era for example)


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

started a thread about something not totally unrelated a while back:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ty-politics-attitudes-of-progressives.293453/


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think the left increasingly leant on identity politics as working class organisations declined, it's recruits increasingly came from those movements etc... i think it has been an evolution, but it appears to have accelerated in intensity and influence over the past 4-5 years (i don't remember coming across this stuff at all during the Stop the War era for example)


When you say "the left" I assume you mean generally rather than just anarchism.
It's an interesting perception, because if you had asked me the same question I would have said that the left had increasingly distanced themselves from identity politics in the past 4 or 5 years. I've felt there was an increasing disapproval.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> started a thread about something not totally unrelated a while back:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ty-politics-attitudes-of-progressives.293453/


Ta, I'll have a read later, bit too late/tired to start on it now.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> This identity politics stuff is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand you've got certain people refusing to be defined by their sexuality or gender, and then you've got people, in some cases the same people, telling everyone that because they're white or male or whatever that they are by nature oppressive towards others and that they are powerless to change their ways of their own free will.


 
I know I'm replying to a very early post in the thread, sorry, I've just been re-reading the whole thing and noticed it and wanted to reply.

While there's certainly a risk that elements of essentialism can result from what you're describing, my understanding of privilege politics (which by no means is exhaustive) is that the emphasis isn't on anyone being oppressive _by nature_ (e.g. "you're white, that means you are automatically oppressive and want to keep other people down"), but in actually trying to come to a deeper understanding of the ways in which society's structure benefits certain people over others, and urging people to be aware of this so as to, I suppose at its most basic level, foster some sort of empathy*.

As there is with any kind of politics, there will be people who then use that in decidedly unhelpful ways. I remember reading an article where a guy was attempting to explain the various ways in which society effectively 'conditions' guys to expect certain things from women. It was, on the surface, a relatively progressive piece, trying to understand how men and women are positioned. But ultimately it came across as offering some kind of "we just can't help ourselves, ladies! It's not our fault' excuse. It was all structure, no agency, if you will.

*Of course, that's where it often ends. Empathy is important, but you need to do something with that new knowledge afterwords. At it's heart, the bones of privilege theory seems to be merely wanting to highlight precisely what I said above: that there is no universal experience, that human relations are nuanced, that relations with the state are nuanced, and that power can be claimed by all sorts of people, even when they believe themselves to be being rather progressive.

I believe that privilege theory _can_ be used in a useful way, as part of, or a jumping off point for, trying to examine the many different ways people are constituted by, and help constitute, political and economic structures, BUT it can also, obviously, be used simply as another way to do identity politics. But just because it _can_ be used in that way, doesn't mean it has to be, and forever the optimist (despite being a dyed-in-the-wool cynic and curmudgeon), I can't help want to try to salvage something from the various analyses of privilege that go on, rather than dismissing the whole lot as a bad job.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> When you say "the left" I assume you mean generally rather than just anarchism.
> It's an interesting perception, because if you had asked me the same question I would have said that the left had increasingly distanced themselves from identity politics in the past 4 or 5 years. I've felt there was an increasing disapproval.


 
i've recognised a lot of polarisation in the last few years, which i might attribute to the rise of identity politics - but certainly in my experience its influence has increased both in cultural output and also control of institutions (using NUS as an example again, many SUs are heavily impregnated with this stuff, also seeing articles in the Guardian from the likes of Laurie Penny etc introducing a lot of its tropes). i've heard similar things from folks i know in Ireland as well


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

...


----------



## revol68 (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The working class/middle class thing about who should be doing what kind of politics interests me.
> 
> It's quite often the case, that just because someone happens to be middle class and they want to be involved in some sort of politics, they are automatically bad, clearly don't have a clue what they're on about, and are part of the problem. Sure, lots of middle class people 'do politics wrong' but there are plenty of working class people who 'do politics wrong' too. You're not automatically better at sorting out what the best way to go about something is or what the most important issues are just because you're working class. Both groups (insofar as they are 'groups' at all) inhabit a specific set of circumstances that helps shape how they see the world, both are a part of the system, both have a stake in it, and just because one gets a rawer deal than the other (economically, and we can argue the toss in terms of other things re: 'identity politics' stuff) doesn't mean they have a preternatural affinity for being able to do 'authentic' politics.
> 
> There are a lot of middle class people in these occupy things, and in various lefty organisations. But rather than castigating them for being involved in some way (even if they sometimes 'do it wrong') how about trying to get more working class people involved _as well_.



You dont seem to get the whole point of class from a class struggle perspective, you are reducing it to just another form of identity politics, another sectional "interest".


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

revol68 said:


> You dont seem to get the whole point of class from a class struggle perspective, you are reducing it to just another form of identity politics, another sectional "interest".


I think the wider point (judging from where I'm picking up that this privilege theory is coming from) is that anarchism/activism has a shitload of middle class youngish people in it, that really don't even get the concept of class struggle, let alone feel it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

revol68 said:


> You dont seem to get the whole point of class from a class struggle perspective, you are reducing it to just another form of identity politics, another sectional "interest".


 
Not sure where you got all that from the post you quoted. Class isn't about identity politics, I've never suggested it was. I think you're seeing things you want to see. At its most basic level, all my post you quoted wanted to think about was whether some people see the working class as automatically better at actually 'doing' politics, and whether the middle class will ever be seen as anything worthwhile to other lefties, or if they are automatically full of shit just because they are middle class. In no way was my post you quoted trying to say class is something like identity politics. I'm sorry if that was difficult to understand for you.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> I think the wider point (judging from where I'm picking up that this privilege theory is coming from) is that anarchism/activism has a shitload of middle class youngish people in it, that really don't even get the concept of class struggle, let alone feel it.


 
This.

And a fair few people who are concerned that victory in the class struggle won't change things for them because of their gender, skin colour, or other factor.  Which is fair enough, but needs to be within a class struggle framework too.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> This.
> 
> And a fair few people who are concerned that victory in the class struggle won't change things for them because of their gender, skin colour, or other factor.  Which is fair enough, but needs to be within a class struggle framework too.


Do you mean "we'll my life will always be comparatively more shit, even if the general level of shitness improves?"


----------



## Random (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Do you mean "we'll my life will always be comparatively more shit, even if the general level of shitness improves?"


Also maybe "even if this movement gets anywhere those loud bastards will still be interrupting me in meetings and expecting me to put up with their shit".


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

And that leads back to the origins of the thread. If the organisations that are concerned with revolution/overturning capitalism/bringing about communism or socialism or whatever display racism or sexism, then how can people who experience those things under the current system feel very inspired by that struggle? It's naive to suggest that 'come the revolution there will be no more sexism or racism....just because.'


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Random said:


> Also maybe "even if this movement gets anywhere those loud bastards will still be interrupting me in meetings and expecting me to put up with their shit".


"Check your privilege, retard"

Edit:not you, Random


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

So what is it about the milieu of anarchism/activism that has acted as a platform to give this privilege theory traction?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> So what is it about the milieu of anarchism/activism that has acted as a platform to give this privilege theory traction?


 
I'm not entirely sure it's as all-pervasive as it may have been intimated here. And I'm not sure that there's anything about anarchism in and of itself that has opened it up to it, but maybe more of a frustration that there are _still_ struggles going on over the basic right to have sexism and racism challenged, and even recognised, even in these leftie spaces, who are supposed to know better, right?

I'm not active in any anarchist organisations though, so I can't speak to that with any personal experience.


----------



## Ash Mahay (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> I think the wider point (judging from where I'm picking up that this privilege theory is coming from) is that anarchism/activism has a shitload of middle class youngish people in it, that really don't even get the concept of class struggle, let alone feel it.



Isnt it the case that many of these anarchists are merely from the "other wing" & see a different solution to the "class struggle", rather than maybe "not underdstanding it"?

I may be wrong but it seems people are discussing "imports".

I cant be bothered to look up details but as anarchism fractured over a century ago the "left" (for need of a label) increased popularity in Europe, where as the "right" did generally better on the other side of the pond.

Fast forward a hundred years or more and todays youth, or those turning to anarchism, look at the two wings, percieve (rightly or wrongly) the left to be more dated & reactionary & the right to be more exciting & revolutionary, so begin to "import" their prefered brand.

Now the right wing of anarchism in America is perhaps more connected with their right wing politics via links like libertarianism, so when re-imported comes with a few right wing habits.

It all goes back to things like Proudhon v's Marx & that sort of stuff surely?


----------



## Random (Oct 3, 2012)

I can't be bothered to read your post, but basically you're 100% wrong


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2012)

He'll just claim to have invented kropotkin


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm not entirely sure it's as all-pervasive as it may have been intimated here. And I'm not sure that there's anything about anarchism in and of itself that has opened it up to it, but maybe more of a frustration that there are _still_ struggles going on over the basic right to have sexism and racism challenged, and even recognised, even in these leftie spaces, who are supposed to know better, right?
> 
> I'm not active in any anarchist organisations though, so I can't speak to that with any personal experience.


It would be useful to know how pervasive it is. It's certainly pervasive enough for AFED to dedicate a meeting slot to it at the Bookfair, even if we don't yet know what the agenda for that slot will be.

I'm not active in any anarchist organisation either, so there's no insights from me.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Ash, what do you mean by anarchism fracturing?

Also, "right wing anarchists" aren't anarchists, although they might be activists.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 3, 2012)

revol68 said:


> You dont seem to get the whole point of class from a class struggle perspective, you are reducing it to just another form of identity politics, another sectional "interest".


 
So, what is the difference about class, that makes it different from other inequalities?


----------



## Random (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's certainly pervasive enough for AFED to dedicate a meeting slot to it at the Bookfair, even if we don't yet know what the agenda for that slot will be.


 All it means is that someone in AFED thinks this is worth discussing and probably supports elements of it. I doubt that this meeting is the result of a democratic decision by the majority of AFED members.


----------



## Random (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ash, what do you mean by anarchism fracturing?
> 
> Also, "right wing anarchists" aren't anarchists, although they might be activists.


Just ignore that post, hem's not even wrong in the right way.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Random said:


> All it means is that someone in AFED thinks this is worth discussing and probably supports elements of it. I doubt that this meeting is the result of a democratic decision by the majority of AFED members.


Seriously, AFED let people on an individual basis assign one of the few meeting slots at the Bookfair without it being a democratic decision?


----------



## Random (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Seriously, AFED let people on an individual basis assign one of the few meeting slots at the Bookfair without it being a democratic decision?


Do you think they had a postal ballot? They probably had a meeting in London, one of the items on the agenda was AFED metings at the Bootfair, someone said s/he wanted to do this and no one objected. Apologies to anyone from AFED if I'm misrepresenting them; I have been a member but never attended a meeting.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

8115 said:


> So, what is the difference about class, that makes it different from other inequalities?


Because class inequalities in a capitalist society straddle everything;  horizontally across any differences in culture and gender, and vertically in the sense that the working class is exploited for profit that goes into the pockets of the rich.


Edit:  anyone that can come up with a better description that doesn't quote Marx etc, please feel free to correct.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Random said:


> Do you think they had a postal ballot? They probably had a meeting in London, one of the items on the agenda was AFED metings at the Bootfair, someone said s/he wanted to do this and no one objected. Apologies to anyone from AFED if I'm misrepresenting them; I have been a member but never attended a meeting.


I don't know, I was just asking cos you seemed to know about it.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

So AFED are more into paper voting than jazz hands?

I've never been to a proper anarchist meeting despite my sympathy with the ideas. 
I have no doubt that if I went I'd definitely be doing it wrong.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> So AFED are more into paper voting than jazz hands?
> 
> I've never been to a proper anarchist meeting despite my sympathy with the ideas.
> I have no doubt that if I went I'd definitely be doing it wrong.


 
Everyone's always doing it wrong, for somebody somewhere. That's why all of this can often feel like a massive exercise in futility.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Everyone's always doing it wrong, for somebody somewhere. That's why all of this can often feel like a massive exercise in futility.


 
That's not really what I meant.

Last time I attended a political meeting I went wrong by cracking open a can of lager and offering a few round.  I'd probably be doing something dictatorial or pseudo-fascist without noticing.


----------



## Ash Mahay (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ash, what do you mean by anarchism fracturing?



The anarchist movement fractured repeatedly "back in the day" and the different factions went different ways. 



> Also, "right wing anarchists" aren't anarchists, although they might be activists.



I wasnt refering to the right/left paradigm of the full political sphere more identifying different branches of anarchism & in the case of America whilst not right wing as in the sense of toryism they are more naturally aligned to things like libertarianism (which is viewed as right wing) than either the Republicans or the Democrats, who are both even further removed from anarchism.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

It's impossible to have a conversation with someone that changes their tune to that extent between one post and the next.

Edit: and don't try and refer me to bloody shirtfront for a balanced view, either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm not entirely sure it's as all-pervasive as it may have been intimated here. And I'm not sure that there's anything about anarchism in and of itself that has opened it up to it,


 
I'm not sure if Anarchism per se is inherently more open to this sort of liberal politics than other left currents, but as American "Anarchism" is for the most part at best half a step from radical liberalism and co-exists with NGOism and open liberalism in broad activist milieus, there probably is something inherent to US Anarchism which is particularly open to it.

I'm not sure if the conduit into UK Anarchism has been the influence of US Anarchism or US liberal feminism though. Nor am I really sure how significant the inroads it has made really are.

I've just noticed, by the way, that the concept of "privilege" makes an appearance in the Dublin Revolutionary AnarchaFeminist Group's explanation of Anarcha Feminism, although only a relative brief one. The Irish Feminist Gathering from a few years ago had a meeting addressed to men called "Challenging Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies", which manages to gather together a whole bunch of concepts and terms imported from the US.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Irish Feminist Gathering from a few years ago had a meeting addressed to men called "Challenging Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies", which manages to gather together a whole bunch of concepts and terms imported from the US.


 
Does the 'pro-feminist allies' bit mean 'as opposed to describing themselves as feminists'?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think the emphasis should be placed on being right rather than appealing to people in some personal need of political salvation... most of the identity politics recruits i've seen are definitely not in it for the long term. not high quality...


 
I know exactly what you mean there, there's one very active student member of the SWP, who I'm sure you'll know, who's particularly bad on this. There's an SWPer who I work closely with on a couple of things, IMO he's the best activist the SWP have got in Sheffield - a working class lad, not a party hack, not patronising and willing to think for himself  - and this identity politics student apparently claimed that the lad in question "must" be homophobic because of his thick northern accent. Of course he's nothing of the sort. Bear in mind he's a member of a group that we're told aims at "the emancipation of the working class as the act of the working class" /rmp3


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> Does the 'pro-feminist allies' bit mean 'as opposed to describing themselves as feminists'?


 
I'm not sure it is, I think it just means 'feminist' but is using the fashionable trend of calling people allies. But then, maybe that's because I personally can't see any problem with a man calling himself a feminist. Maybe there are some feminists out there who do have a problem with that. To which I just sigh.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 3, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I know exactly what you mean there, there's one very active student member of the SWP, who I'm sure you'll know, who's particularly bad on this. There's an SWPer who I work closely with on a couple of things, IMO he's the best activist the SWP have got in Sheffield - a working class lad, not a party hack, not patronising and willing to think for himself - and this identity politics student apparently claimed that the lad in question "must" be homophobic because of his thick northern accent. Of course he's nothing of the sort. Bear in mind he's a member of a group that we're told aims at "the emancipation of the working class as the act of the working class" /rmp3


 
Let me guess, regional northern accents are indicative of machoism which is in turn a sub-category of homophobia...

all the more irritating as the identity twat in question has a cuntish middle-class background from Altrincham, attended the grammar school and has quite obviously never suffered for anything in his life (let alone been persecuted for his sexuality)


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm not sure it is, I think it just means 'feminist' but is using the fashionable trend of calling people allies. But then, maybe that's because I personally can't see any problem with a man calling himself a feminist. Maybe there are some feminists out there who do have a problem with that. To which I just sigh.


 
We had a big discussion on Urban about it a while back.  After some thought I wound up on the side of not feeling comfortable calling myself a feminist, being a bloke, but I've never been one to want to regulate the language of others.


----------



## Ash Mahay (Oct 3, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not sure if Anarchism per se is inherently more open to this sort of liberal politics than other left currents, but as American "Anarchism" is for the most part at best half a step from radical liberalism and co-exists with NGOism and open liberalism in broad activist milieus, there probably is something inherent to US Anarchism which is particularly open to it.
> 
> I'm not sure if the conduit into UK Anarchism has been the influence of US Anarchism or US liberal feminism though. Nor am I really sure how significant the inroads it has made really are.
> 
> I've just noticed, by the way, that the concept of "privilege" makes an appearance in the Dublin Revolutionary AnarchaFeminist Group's explanation of Anarcha Feminism, although only a relative brief one. The Irish Feminist Gathering from a few years ago had a meeting addressed to men called "Challenging Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies", which manages to gather together a whole bunch of concepts and terms imported from the US.



Thanks, yes, is exactly the sort of things Im on about. Really quite surprised so few on the E-A (european anarchist side, to avoid right/left confusions) are aware of this parrallel evolution of anarchism.

E-A & A-A (American anarchism) do share a common history that traces back to a shared point in time so its actually quite relevant.

Btw. when calling them E-A & A-A that isnt to say that there are not European A-As or American E-As, there always have been its more to indicate where each branch is more prevelant.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> Let me guess, regional northern accents are indicative of machoism which is in turn a sub-category of homophobia...
> 
> all the more irritating as the identity twat in question has a cuntish middle-class background from Altrincham, attended the grammar school and has quite obviously never suffered for anything in his life (let alone been persecuted for his sexuality)


 
If I were to randomly type the letters MB would that mean anything to you?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> We had a big discussion on Urban about it a while back. After some thought I wound up on the side of not feeling comfortable calling myself a feminist, being a bloke, but I've never been one to want to regulate the language of others.


 
There's a big problem, imo, in getting caught up in terminology. It's the ideas and deeds that matter, ultimately. That said, I can certainly understand why some feel that being able to control various terms is important to them, but in the long run I find it a distraction and something that causes more division and unnecessary bullshit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> Does the 'pro-feminist allies' bit mean 'as opposed to describing themselves as feminists'?


 
That's the unspoken assumption behind it, yes. It's not an outgrowth of minor British feminist arguments about whether men should call themselves feminists in the 80s. Instead it's a concept important directly from American internet liberal identity politics, whereby those who sympathise with a movement but don't themselves "identify" as a member of the oppressed group at the centre of that movement are "allies". It fits very closely with privilege theory.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> There's a big problem, imo, in getting caught up in terminology. It's the ideas and deeds that matter, ultimately. That said, I can certainly understand why some feel that being able to control various terms is important to them, but in the long run I find it a distraction and something that causes more division and unnecessary bullshit.


 
Yes, it's nothing I'd want to spend time getting bogged down with, but I don't think it would be right to call myself a feminist, for reasons discussed on prior thread.  It's down to tactics more than definition, really.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's the unspoken assumption behind it, yes. It's not an outgrowth of minor British feminist arguments about whether men should call themselves feminists in the 80s. Instead it's a concept important directly from American internet liberal identity politics, whereby those who sympathise with a movement but don't themselves "identify" as a member of the oppressed group at the centre of that movement are "allies". It fits very closely with privilege theory.


 
So when they are saying 'men should be pro-feminist allies', is it not the '_should_' bit that they are debating, using language of their choice, but are just actually trying to persuade men to stop calling themselves feminists cos half the time they're just trying to get into their pants?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> So when they are saying 'men should be pro-feminist allies', is it not the '_should_' bit that they are debating, using language of their choice, but are just actually trying to persuade men to stop calling themselves feminists cos half the time they're just trying to get into their pants?


 
It's not as clear cut at that. Yanko-liberals of this sort place individual identity at the core of their politics. Men can't really understand what it's like to be oppressed as a woman, because for them that's all about personal experience, but they can be "allies" of those who do really understand. Similarly, white people can only be "allies" of black people in the struggle against racism for the same reason.

It's not really about people trying to get into anyone's pants, or the fear thereof.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2012)

By the way, did anyone get a response from the Anarchist Federation after requesting a copy of the discussion document? I'm not sure if they aren't getting back to me because nobody is checking their emails or if they've pegged me as an undesirable.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not as clear cut at that. Yanko-liberals of this sort place individual identity at the core of their politics. Men can't really understand what it's like to be oppressed as a woman, because for them that's all about personal experience, but they can be "allies" of those who do really understand. Similarly, white people can only be "allies" of black people in the struggle against racism for the same reason.


 
Not sure the terms quite match up there.  I have reservations about men identifying as feminists, but wouldn't say a man couldn't describe himself as 'anti-sexist', nor would I say a white person could not describe themself as 'anti-racist'.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> Not sure the terms quite match up there. I have reservations about men identifying as feminists, but wouldn't say a man couldn't describe himself as 'anti-sexist', nor would I say a white person could not describe themself as 'anti-racist'.


 
That's where some of the hostility can come from. By no means is everyone who uses the ideas of privilege doing this, but it's often used in a hostile way, a la "you're not black, how dare you attempt to speak for me" when the person may have merely been expressing solidarity or saying they were anti-racist. Hence the divisiveness. It's all very messy, because it's bleedingly obvious that someone who suffers endless shit because they are black, or gay, or whatever, is going to be better placed to say what that is like than someone who doesn't, but extending it further to say someone who isn't black, or gay, or whatever, can't then be active in wanting to do something to help, that they can't empathise, is stupid. But as I say, that's not necessarily where it ends up, and those pictures earlier in the thread aren't the only results coming out of people talking about privilege - it's easy to think that's all it is though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> Not sure the terms quite match up there. I have reservations about men identifying as feminists, but wouldn't say a man couldn't describe himself as 'anti-sexist', nor would I say a white person could not describe themself as 'anti-racist'.


 
I know, that's what I've been trying to explain in a rather inarticulate way. The stuff about "allies" at the Irish Feminist Gathering was not an outgrowth of the kind of arguments you sometimes got in Irish or British feminism about whether men should call themselves feminists. Instead it's Yanko-Liberal discourse being imported wholesale and in that milieu, the notion of the oppressed group and "allies" covers anti-racism, anti-homophobia etc as well as anti-sexism. This language then interacts with the already existing issues around the word feminist to produce a meeting called "Recognising Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies".


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I know, that's what I've been trying to explain in a rather inarticulate way. The stuff about "allies" at the Irish Feminist Gathering was not an outgrowth of the kind of arguments you sometimes got in Irish or British feminism about whether men should call themselves feminists. Instead it's Yanko-Liberal discourse being imported wholesale and in that milieu, the notion of the oppressed group and "allies" covers anti-racism, anti-homophobia etc as well as anti-sexism. This language then interacts with the already existing issues around the word feminist to produce a meeting called "Recognising Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies".


 
Right, gotcha. 

Seems a bit odd how some groups can have very high opinions of the merits of empathy, but then shun support by people who merely empathise rather than have experienced a form of oppression.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> He'll just claim to have invented kropotkin


 
Bakhunin, more likely. No-one wants to pretend to have invented an aristo, even one as well-rounded and sound as the Prince.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ash, what do you mean by anarchism fracturing?


 
Anarchism never fractured. It was never a unitary philosophy amenable to fracture, just people who agreed about some things and disagreed about others coming together for specific purposes, then taking their leave.



> Also, "right wing anarchists" aren't anarchists, although they might be activists.


 
I think he means "libertarian", as defined by Americans rather than by Brits.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

8115 said:


> So, what is the difference about class, that makes it different from other inequalities?


 
Class arches over all other cleavages/inequalities. Look at those "other inequalities", and class is always present as well as the "other inequality".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's impossible to have a conversation with someone that changes their tune to that extent between one post and the next.


 
Ah, you've noticed his flexible positioning too?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Class arches over all other cleavages/inequalities. Look at those "other inequalities", and class is always present as well as the "other inequality".



Though the same person could be the victim of one of the 'isms' at the same time as being a beneficiary of class inequality. Doesn't it make more sense to say that the other forms of domination are an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Or perhaps that's what you meant?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bakhunin, more likely. No-one wants to pretend to have invented an aristo, even one as well-rounded and sound as the Prince.


Also an aristocrat, or at least from a noble bakground.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> Though the same person could be the victim of one of the 'isms' at the same time as being a beneficiary of class inequality. Doesn't it make more sense to say that the other forms of domination are an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Or perhaps that's what you meant?


 
That first part is what this privilege theory at its most basic is concerned with - that you might be a victim of one thing, but a beneficiary of another, but it falls short of recognising class as the overarching thing that, as vp says, is there all the time.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> That first part is what this privilege theory at its most basic is concerned with - that you might be a victim of one thing, but a beneficiary of another, but it falls short of recognising class as the overarching thing that, as vp says, is there all the time.



It's just that I don't quite follow what you mean by the overarching nature of class. Some of the posts here seem to imply that a victim of an 'ism' is necessarily a victim of class inequality. But that can't be right, can it?

Also, I understand that, regardless of any other attribute which might mean we are subject to unfavorable treatment, we all stand somewhere in relation to the means of production. But I don't see that there's anything in the internal logic of privilege theory which requires class to be be afforded any more significance than any other attribute. Or is that your point? That privilege theory fails to recognise that many forms of domination arise from capitalism.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> It's just that I don't quite follow what you mean by the overarching nature of class. Some of the posts here seem to imply that a victim of an 'ism' is necessarily a victim of class inequality. But that can't be right, can it?
> 
> Also, I understand that, regardless of any other attribute which might mean we are subject to unfavorable treatment, we all stand somewhere in relation to the means of production. But I don't see that there's anything in the internal logic of privilege theory which requires class to be be afforded any more significance than any other attribute. Or is that your point? That privilege theory fails to recognise that many forms of domination arise from capitalism.


 
Yes, the bit at the end. That's how I see it anyway, others may disagree.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> It's just that I don't quite follow what you mean by the overarching nature of class. Some of the posts here seem to imply that a victim of an 'ism' is necessarily a victim of class inequality. But that can't be right, can it?
> 
> Also, I understand that, regardless of any other attribute which might mean we are subject to unfavorable treatment, we all stand somewhere in relation to the means of production. But I don't see that there's anything in the internal logic of privilege theory which requires class to be be afforded any more significance than any other attribute. Or is that your point? That privilege theory fails to recognise that many forms of domination arise from capitalism.


 
Also, a victim of an 'ism' isn't necessarily a victim of class inequality, they might be a beneficiary of class inequality, but class inequality is always there.

I suppose privilege theory would indeed hold that that is no different than anything else; it would argue that a victim of homophobia may or may not also be a victim of racism, but that the presence of racism is still there and they may in fact be a beneficiary of its existence. So the whole 'check your privilege' thing is about looking at the various forms of domination that exist to see whether you benefit from them, when you may have had no reason to think about it before because you see it as someone else's problem. The difference is that they don't tend to do so within a framework of class struggle to begin with.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Yes, the bit at the end. That's how I see it anyway, others may disagree.



In which case I agree with you.

Though I can see why people might be attracted to identity politics in the belief that, whilst the end of capitalism might ultimately do more to bring about the demise of a number of forms of domination, identity politics is likely to achieve more in the short term.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Also, a victim of an 'ism' isn't necessarily a victim of class inequality, they might be a beneficiary of class inequality, but class inequality is always there.



Which is the point I was making in my first post.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:
			
		

> In which case I agree with you.
> 
> Though I can see why people might be attracted to identity politics in the belief that, whilst the end of capitalism might ultimately do more to bring about the demise of a number of forms of domination, identity politics is likely to achieve more in the short term.



Also, I think that many activists in these 'single issue' groups don't see how the domination which they suffer arises out of capitalism.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> In which case I agree with you.
> 
> Though I can see why people might be attracted to identity politics in the belief that, whilst the end of capitalism might ultimately do more to bring about the demise of a number of forms of domination, identity politics is likely to achieve more in the short term.


 
I agree. I don't think it's surprising people turn to it at all. And I don't necessarily castigate people for it either.

As a broader concept, it's frustrating to see how a move towards identity politics, along with all the philosophy and cultural criticism of pomo that gave it various kinds of authority, took class politics out of stuff. From my own point of view having studied literary criticism, it's hard to not be frustrated when class isn't even mentioned. I first studied it in the mid-late 90s, and I remember lectures on Gramsci, and Eagleton was recommended at times. But coming back to it in the mid-2000s, it was all Auster. That's still interesting, making the mental gymnastics required to have a big wank to pomo stuff, but it's not exactly very _useful_.


----------



## cesare (Oct 3, 2012)

Apparently it's the organisers of the Bookfair that finally decide on the meetings and who has which slot. So (for the sake of example, and exagerating for effect) if they reviewed which slots had been allocated where and realised that they still needed one that dealt with feminism they'd turn to the lists of who'd submitted what and allocate it accordingly. "Shit, we haven't included feminism _again_, who's submitted something? Here we go, AFED's said privilege theory at number 23 out of 25, we'll go with that".


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> Also, I think that many activists in these 'single issue' groups don't see how the domination which they suffer arises out of capitalism.


 
Absolutely. Probably because it's a relatively abstract notion, especially if financially speaking you're not doing too badly for yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Also an aristocrat, or at least from a noble bakground.


 
I thought he was more local nobility/"landed gentry"?
As you say, though, still from a noble background.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> Though the same person could be the victim of one of the 'isms' at the same time as being a beneficiary of class inequality. Doesn't it make more sense to say that the other forms of domination are an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Or perhaps that's what you meant?


 
Sorry for the delay in answering, was cooking the rice and peas. 

Pretty much what I meant is that all other social cleavages originate in class cleavages, so yeah, they are inevitable consequences of capitalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> It's just that I don't quite follow what you mean by the overarching nature of class.


 
Class is like a net or web that all society is tangled in. We have enough agency to move to be able to realise this, and to know we can't escape, under capitalism, the class structure.



> Some of the posts here seem to imply that a victim of an 'ism' is necessarily a victim of class inequality. But that can't be right, can it?


 
Why not? Aren't "isms" essentially stratifiers and markers of social position relative to another position, that validate or otherwise allow behaviours?
If we take that as being the case, where do all "isms" lead back to? To the assumption that some people are better than others, something that has manifested in every early society. Class cleavage. You can't have "leaders", according to this assumption, without having "the led". The justification for all other "isms" originates in classism.

Not very elegantly put, I know. 



> Also, I understand that, regardless of any other attribute which might mean we are subject to unfavorable treatment, we all stand somewhere in relation to the means of production. But I don't see that there's anything in the internal logic of privilege theory which requires class to be be afforded any more significance than any other attribute. Or is that your point? That privilege theory fails to recognise that many forms of domination arise from capitalism.


 
IMO (other opinions may differ) it's not a failure to recognise, it's a failure to engage with a subject that would hole the privilege theory argument below the waterline, and therefore sink its adherents. recognising the all-encompassing nature of class means one of two things for privilege theory: 1) that it has to be accepted that any identity politics that doesn't acknowledge the nature of class has little validity (unlikely!), or 2) that privilege theory's adherents have to accept that it's an ideological position rather than an intellectual one.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Class is like a net or web that all society is tangled in. We have enough agency to move to be able to realise this, and to know we can't escape, under capitalism, the class structure.


 
Yeah, I get that bit.




ViolentPanda said:


> Why not? Aren't "isms" essentially stratifiers and markers of social position relative to another position, that validate or otherwise allow behaviours?  If we take that as being the case, where do all "isms" lead back to? To the assumption that some people are better than others, something that has manifested in every early society. Class cleavage. You can't have "leaders", according to this assumption, without having "the led". The justification for all other "isms" originates in classism.
> 
> Not very elegantly put, I know.


 
And I agree with the idea that capitalism creates forms of domination.  But I don't think it follows that a victim of an 'ism' can't also be a benificiary of class inequality.  That was really the only point I was initially making - that whilst it's true to say that capitalism creates forms of domination, it's not necessarily true to suggest that the victims of those forms are only ever the victims of capitalism.




ViolentPanda said:


> IMO (other opinions may differ) it's not a failure to recognise, it's a failure to engage with a subject that would hole the privilege theory argument below the waterline, and therefore sink its adherents. recognising the all-encompassing nature of class means one of two things for privilege theory: 1) that it has to be accepted that any identity politics that doesn't acknowledge the nature of class has little validity (unlikely!), or 2) that privilege theory's adherents have to accept that it's an ideological position rather than an intellectual one.


 
I agree that identity politics is flawed because it fails to recognise to distinguish between class and other other forms of domination, and thereby fails to recognise the extent that the latter can flow from the former.  But, as I pointed out above, I can understand the attraction of identity politics insofar as it can present more obviously acheivable short-term gains.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Athos said:


> Though I can see why people might be attracted to identity politics in the belief that, whilst the end of capitalism might ultimately do more to bring about the demise of a number of forms of domination, identity politics is likely to achieve more in the short term.


 
I think the endless anal-gazing over issues of identity is what gave cunts like Atos the room to exist.

edit: I said ATOS!


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

Page fourteen, and people are agreeing? This is not proper urbans


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> the problems the anarchist 'scene' has with attracting immature kids in it for aesthetic notions of rebellion and 'babes' has more fundamental roots in the general shitty nature of how they organise and the theories which are popular within their groups than it has to do with 'masculinity' or 'masculine attitudes'.


the anarchist 'scene' has no problem attracting immature kids.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> I think the endless anal-gazing over issues of identity is what gave cunts like Atos the room to exist.
> 
> edit: I said ATOS!


have you ever tried anal gazing? it's bloody difficult.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> have you ever tried anal gazing? it's bloody difficult.


 
That's why it takes up so much energy.


----------



## malatesta32 (Oct 3, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Page fourteen, and people are agreeing? This is not proper urbans


 
yes it is! its contrary!


----------



## malatesta32 (Oct 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> the anarchist 'scene' has no problem attracting immature kids.


say that again and ill bash you at playtime!


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> yes it is! its contrary!



Check your bloody privilege before you talk to me, pleb!


----------



## malatesta32 (Oct 3, 2012)

ner ner ner ner ner! im not playing!


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

Which is, essentially, the way identity politics and privilege drive people away from becoming involved


----------



## 8115 (Oct 3, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Which is, essentially, the way identity politics and privilege drive people away from becoming involved


 
I think that's a bit like having Dolmio sauce and then saying, "I don't like Italian food".


----------



## malatesta32 (Oct 3, 2012)

dolmio has got nowt to do with italian food 8115!


----------



## 8115 (Oct 3, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> dolmio has got nowt to do with italian food 8115!


 
That's my point.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 3, 2012)

I had terrible pasta sauce out of a jar with bacon in tonight, hence my example.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

8115 said:


> I think that's a bit like having Dolmio sauce and then saying, "I don't like Italian food".



But if you've never tried any Italian style food but Dolmio, and are told that it is real Italian food, how would you know?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 3, 2012)

Balbi said:


> But if you've never tried any Italian style food but Dolmio, and are told that it is real Italian food, how would you know?


 
That's my point 

Are you winding me up?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 3, 2012)

I can do a lengthy explanation of the metaphor if you need me to.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

When it comes to getting involved in political activism, as evidenced on this thread in places, sometimes you get the shit dolmio sauce and it drives you away from all Italian food for good. 

So maybe, yeah.


----------



## malatesta32 (Oct 3, 2012)

make your own!


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

malatesta32 said:


> make your own!



Pah, effort! And dolmio have the market cornered


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2012)

I like the Loyd Grossman one with bacon in it.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

8ball said:


> I like the Loyd Grossman one with bacon in it.



Ah, come see the pig product inherent in the sauce


----------



## 8115 (Oct 3, 2012)

Actually, it was Homepride, and I'm being a privileged cow moaning about it because it was nice of someone else to make me some food.

But my point about bad identity politics being like jar pasta sauce still stands.

Also it's made round my mouth itch   That could have been the sweets though.

/derail


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

I love how a thread about manarchism ended up being a thread discussing cooking tips.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

Well, there's a lot of women on the thread so I thought I would provide a simple analogy of the contents using a medium they would understand.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

Thanks. I was considering asking for some sort of explanation using kittens earlier, but I was afraid I'd be laughed and and told to go away


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2012)

Ickle fwuffy ones?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 3, 2012)

Yes. I like their little paws.


----------



## cesare (Oct 4, 2012)

Not to want to put an end to this discussion by way of the abuse of my privilege of age, but I've been reminded of this throughout the conversation:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c&desktop_uri=/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c&gl=GB


----------



## malatesta32 (Oct 4, 2012)

meat version: melt butter, cook onion, garlic, lardons, add mince (any mince meat - ive had horse, veal and donkey in italy), brown. add 1/2 can italian toms or passata, squirt of puree, S&P. add fresh cooked pasta after 40 mins and mix. it shd coat the pasta not drown it like dolmio so you can still taste it. 
veggie version: butter, onion, garlic, 2 or 3 diff mushroom types, toms, puree, S&P. 10 mins, add cooked pasta. always take pasta to sauce, never drown it, top with plenty of parmesan. use italian pasta it tastes better. butter is used in north of italy and gives it the distinct flavour, olive oil is used the further south you go. you're welcome!


----------



## Ole (Oct 6, 2012)

Had no idea what this term was until I read this thread and looked it up.



> Manarchists are the non-hot variety of anarchist. Manarchists are macho "anarchists" who talk too much at meetings, adhere to the cult of the great thinkers (drop Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Chomsky, etc. . . all the time), negate others' experiences, take up space, exert their privileges to their fullest, and generally perpetuate heteropatriarchal bullshit
> 
> _Manarchists flourish at house shows, where they might drunkenly talk at you about the working class, without allowing any of the transfolk and women present to speak. They are also found at meetings where they have all the ideas but none of the time or energy to do the work. They can sometimes be identified by the PBR cans that grow in their hands and the famous now-defunct leftist organization and/or crust band their outer coverings reference._


 
Jesus fucking wept. 

For anyone more familiar with this 'scene', is the disregard shown here for left-wing figures like Kropotkin, Bakunin et al. significant at all? Who are the significant thinkers for these sorts of "anti-macho" 'anarchists'?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 7, 2012)

Ole said:


> Jesus fucking wept.
> 
> For anyone more familiar with this 'scene', is the disregard shown here for left-wing figures like Kropotkin, Bakunin et al. significant at all? Who are the significant thinkers for these sorts of "anti-macho" 'anarchists'?


 
At a rough guess, maybe Emma Goldman is in there somewhere?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 8, 2012)

also, as it clearly refers to american lifestylists, i think the scenes are pretty different.

i suspect that the author means that those they perceive as manarchists have only read the basics, the big names, so that they can drop these names, rather than as part of a wider reading and understanding of critical theory.  like students talking loudly about goethe on the bus so that everyone knows they've read something big and clever.  all the anarchofeminists i have known would definitely respect such names as a base for theory but not the be-all and end-all.  whether that is the same in the US i haven't a clue.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 8, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> i suspect that the author means that those they perceive as manarchists have only read the basics, the big names, so that they can drop these names, rather than as part of a wider reading and understanding of critical theory.


 
What a remarkably charitable soul you are. I mean, there's no obvious evidence to support such an interpretation, but you've gone above and beyond the call of duty to find an excuse.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 8, 2012)

i know, i'm trying to see the best in everyone today.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

To the persons asking about kyriarchy, I think it's a pretentious way of saying oppression or oppressive power, just like manarchism means sexism.

The kind of people who use it are very young adults (I'm not linking because of this)



who ask whether a clenched fist symbol, when used by white races of the world, is racist:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2012)

The raised-fist salute existed before the black power movement, so an argument could be made that Black Power appropriated it for themselves.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 13, 2012)

This is where I first came across it: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/04/kyriarchy_not_p



> *When people talk about patriarchy and then it divulges into a complex conversation about the shifting circles of privilege, power, and domination -- they're talking about kyriarchy*. When you talk about power assertion of a White woman over a Brown man, that's kyriarchy. When you talk about a Black man dominating a Brown womyn, that's kyriarchy. It's about the human tendency for everyone trying to take the role of lord/master within a pyramid. At it best heights, studying kyriarchy displays that it's more than just rich, white Christian men at the tip top and, personally, they're not the ones I find most dangerous. There's a helluva lot more people a few levels down the pyramid who are more interested in keeping their place in the structure than to turning the pyramid upside down.
> Who's at the bottom of the pyramid? Who do you think are at the bottom of the pyramid who are less likely to scheme and spend extravagant resources to further perpetuate oppression? I think of poor children with no roads out of hell, the mentally ill who are never "credible," un-gendered or non-gender identified people, farm workers, modern day slaves...But, the pyramid stratifies itself from top to bottom. And before you start making a checklist of who is at the top and bottom - here's my advice: don't bother. The pyramid shifts with context. The point is not to rank. The point is to learn.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 13, 2012)

Regardless of anything else, just for its realisation that power doesn't only rest with 'rich which Christian men at the top' makes it interesting. Wade into any typical discussion elsewhere on the internet and you'll hear "rich white men" thrown out in a pretty lazy way. Okay, so it's the rich white men who seem to dominate politics and business and control in the west, but that ignores a whole host of other dominations that permeate all relations and structures. And besides, Obama, Thatcher, etc. Their presence doesn't negate the preponderance of 'rich white men' but it shows that 'white man' isn't the deciding factor - it's power, influence, the ability to leverage that for control. And who can come by that power more easily than others changes depending on the social grouping/institution/geographic area/etc.

So, as far as I understand it, kyriarchy is attempting to think about that power itself, and about how different people can appropriate it depending on various conditions. It might be superfluous to have another hollow term floating around when there are already the tools to think about these things, but discussions of kyriarchy are happening amongst people who wouldn't ordinarily think in those terms. The people who would otherwise simply leap for the 'rich white man' label instead. So insofar as it exists as a concept in those places, I don't see it as a bad thing.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Regardless of anything else, just for its realisation that power doesn't only rest with makes it interesting. Wade into any typical discussion elsewhere on the internet and you'll hear "rich white men" thrown out in a pretty lazy way. Okay, so it's the rich white men who seem to dominate politics and business and control in the west, but that ignores a whole host of other dominations that permeate all relations and structures. And besides, Obama, Thatcher, etc. Their presence doesn't negate the preponderance of 'rich white men' but it shows that 'white man' isn't the deciding factor - it's power, influence, the ability to leverage that for control. And who can come by that power more easily than others changes depending on the social grouping/institution/geographic area/etc.
> 
> So, as far as I understand it, kyriarchy is attempting to think about that power itself, and about how different people can appropriate it depending on various conditions. It might be superfluous to have another hollow term floating around when there are already the tools to think about these things, but discussions of kyriarchy are happening amongst people who wouldn't ordinarily think in those terms. The people who would otherwise simply leap for the 'rich white man' label instead. So insofar as it exists as a concept in those places, I don't see it as a bad thing.


 
The word oppression covers the concept - those who are not 'rich which Christian men at the top' can oppress others. Shouldn't we consider any down-side to inventing streams and streams of new words? The newest one I've come across is leftsplaining, a version of mansplaining that leftists do. The more words you create, the harder it is for people who might be foreign to understand what you are saying, the more likely they give up even if they are interested, or turn off something completely.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 13, 2012)

I've specifically talked about the problems of creating lots of new words earlier in this thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2012)

To be honest people should just explain things in clear language rather than invent new words all the time that only they can understand. "Leftsplaining" 90% of the population isn't gonna know what that is. Why can't people just use english instead of this type of mental masturbation


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is where I first came across it: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/04/kyriarchy_not_p


 
Interesting, but (and maybe I'm being oppressive in my criticism) very poorly-written.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Regardless of anything else, just for its realisation that power doesn't only rest with 'rich which Christian men at the top' makes it interesting. Wade into any typical discussion elsewhere on the internet and you'll hear "rich white men" thrown out in a pretty lazy way.


 
As usual, though, it's a successful stereotype because it's accurate, so it's an easy one for people to spit out in an argument.



> Okay, so it's the rich white men who seem to dominate politics and business and control in the west, but that ignores a whole host of other dominations that permeate all relations and structures.


 
It ignores any Foucauldian and post-Foucaauldian notions about the nature of power/knowledge at all.



> And besides, Obama, Thatcher, etc. Their presence doesn't negate the preponderance of 'rich white men' but it shows that 'white man' isn't the deciding factor - it's power, influence, the ability to leverage that for control. And who can come by that power more easily than others changes depending on the social grouping/institution/geographic area/etc.


 
Quite. Wealth (or whiteness) aren't much use if you can't exercise influence, and access to influence is still far more of a matter of social capital than it is of how much money is in your bank account.



> So, as far as I understand it, kyriarchy is attempting to think about that power itself, and about how different people can appropriate it depending on various conditions. It might be superfluous to have another hollow term floating around when there are already the tools to think about these things, but discussions of kyriarchy are happening amongst people who wouldn't ordinarily think in those terms. The people who would otherwise simply leap for the 'rich white man' label instead. So insofar as it exists as a concept in those places, I don't see it as a bad thing.


 
I don't see it as a bad thing either, but I'm disappointed that it only looks at the exercise of power as a "top-down" phenomenon - oppressor on oppressed - rather than attempting an analysis of power as a circulating phenomenon. Power relations can be fluid, after all.


----------



## cantsin (Oct 14, 2012)

Pro - gun femanarchists come out in support of the NRA in Oakland : 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...0105199758890.290560.517343889&type=1&theater


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't see it as a bad thing either, but I'm disappointed that it only looks at the exercise of power as a "top-down" phenomenon - oppressor on oppressed - rather than attempting an analysis of power as a circulating phenomenon. Power relations can be fluid, after all.


 
I agree. In terms of my own views on power etc., it might help to know I'm a bit of a fan of Bourdieu. That's how I generally think of social and power relations. And it gives plenty of scope to think about feminism, capitalism, racism and anything else.

Perhaps I'm too optimistic. But as I've said earlier in the thread, I still think that if you have someone in front of you who thinks in terms of kyriarchy, it would be possible to use that as a foundation to get them to think more critically about those power relations, since they're already starting to think a bit more beyond traditional conceptions of 'man = powerful; white = powerful; straight = powerful' - even if they haven't gone the whole hog yet.


----------



## Firky (Oct 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest people should just explain things in clear language rather than invent new words all the time that only they can understand. "Leftsplaining" 90% of the population isn't gonna know what that is. Why can't people just use english instead of this type of mental masturbation


 
It also runs the risk of making you sound like a tit (especially if it originated in America).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest people should just explain things in clear language rather than invent new words all the time that only they can understand. "Leftsplaining" 90% of the population isn't gonna know what that is. Why can't people just use english instead of this type of mental masturbation


 
It's the idea that if you create your own terminology, you feel more in control of something. I can completely understand why groups do it, particularly when they are specifically fighting some sort of oppression. I agree with you though; there would be far more scope for people joining together and recognising common goals and realising all these fights are for the benefit of everyone, and it would be potentially less alienating to others, if there was none of this new terminology and ground-staking. But, I can still understand why it happens.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

from a "students for justice in palestine" thing i just recieved

_*All About Love*_
_ Inspired by the idiom and book by bell hooks specifically and radical women of color feminism generally, this workshop is about transforming the often arduous and difficult work of organizing into a labor of love. As organizers we tend to burn out because of how much effort and energy we spend in order to organize effectively. Oftentimes our efforts go unrewarded and are even demonized. The speakers will discuss what moves them and how they move to resist creatively. Tanya Keilani is the co-creator of Love Under Apartheid and will speak about the project. Jamil Sbitan will be discussing Palestinian literature and how it can be folded into activism for self determination, and Feride Eralp will be discussing guerrilla theatre and performance as resistance. Participants will discuss the consciousness, aesthetic, or creative work compelling them to transform social justice awareness into praxis._

the conference actually looks like it has some good things on it but i wish they wouldn't say this kind of shit "social awareness into praxis"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

That and the utter fixation on themselves in the role of activist, as _organiser_.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

It’s one of the only opportunities* to meet with hundreds of other student activists doing amazing work, making connections for future info sharing, advice, collaboration, and pen pals!
You see something really powerful about building broad connections between local, grassroots organizing efforts that share goals and principles but have unique tactics and flavors, and that span the entire country.
You get to hear from dozens of seasoned, thoughtful organizers and professionals for advice on running campaigns, building your organization, working with media, understanding and defending your legal rights, and connecting with activists in Palestine.
You have great ideas for how to build a decentralized, sustainable structure for SJP nationally that you’re dying to share.
You really want to be in next year’s promotional video.
You’ve wanted to learn more about how the political situation in Syria and the broader Middle East affects Palestine, the role of creative literary expression in political organizing, and how to draw connections between African-American, Latin@, and indigenous-American historical struggles and Palestine.
You have invaluable lessons from your SJP’s experiences that other students should hear and think about applying to their work.
Your SJP has been saying for a while that you want to make more of an effort to build relationships and coalition with other indigenous and racial justice groups on your campus like Native American, Latin@, African-American, and Asian-American organizations, and want concrete advice on how to do that.
You’ve never been to Ann Arbor before and you love to travel.
We cannot build our movement without you!!
_You really want to be in next year's promotional video._


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

The emails I get from these guys (I'm still on their list after signing some online thing a few years ago) re a fucking goldmine of this stuff.


----------



## cesare (Oct 19, 2012)

Blimey, it's bad enough getting the sodding 38Degrees emails every few days cos of inadvertently once signing a petition. That ^^^ would drive me spare.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

It makes me want to start a direct debit to the IDF.

(joking, obviously)


----------



## rekil (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That and the utter fixation on themselves in the role of activist, as _organiser_.


Did you have a look at the video I posted in the Chile thread? Titelman touches on this sort of thing. "Activism is a word that should be viewed very suspiciously."


----------



## Balbi (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It makes me want to start a direct debit to the IDF.
> 
> (joking, obviously)



We shall embarrass the invaders by publicly declaring our support for them!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

copliker said:


> Did you have a look at the video I posted in the Chile thread? Titelman touches on this sort of thing. "Activism is a word that should be viewed very suspiciously."


Haven't - shall very shortly.


----------



## rekil (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It makes me want to start a direct debit to the IDF.
> 
> (joking, obviously)


You should turn up and ask to do military service. PD is a bit short on tank drivers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

copliker said:


> You should turn up and ask to do military service. PD is a bit short on tank drivers.


 
One step closer to the workers' bomb.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It makes me want to start a direct debit to the IDF.
> 
> (joking, obviously)


 

pizza for the idf


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 19, 2012)

> *When people talk about patriarchy and then it divulges into a complex conversation about the shifting circles of privilege, power, and domination -- they're talking about kyriarchy*_. When you talk about power assertion of a White woman over a Brown man, that's kyriarchy. When you talk about a Black man dominating a Brown womyn, that's kyriarchy. It's about the human tendency for everyone trying to take the role of lord/master within a pyramid. At it best heights, studying kyriarchy displays that it's more than just rich, white Christian men at the tip top and, personally, they're not the ones I find most dangerous. There's a helluva lot more people a few levels down the pyramid who are more interested in keeping their place in the structure than to turning the pyramid upside down._
> _Who's at the bottom of the pyramid? Who do you think are at the bottom of the pyramid who are less likely to scheme and spend extravagant resources to further perpetuate oppression? I think of poor children with no roads out of hell, the mentally ill who are never "credible," un-gendered or non-gender identified people, farm workers, modern day slaves...But, the pyramid stratifies itself from top to bottom. And before you start making a checklist of who is at the top and bottom - here's my advice: don't bother. The pyramid shifts with context. The point is not to rank. The point is to learn._


 
Ungendered my arse. Identification with a particular gender is not necessary, biology identifies your gender for you. If you choose to change your gender then good luck to you, but don't just go on about how society's labels don't fit you and you're far too interesting to be something so tiresome as a man or a woman. It's kind of insulting to those of us who are willing to accept that the fates have dealt us a particular hand and simply make the best of it.

And if you really think it's really that important for you to be recognised as the special thing you think you are rather than the ordinary thing you actually are, don't use it as an excuse to include yourself in a list of the most downtrodden and oppressed people in the world, for that is a cunt's trick. How can you be persecuted when the only people who know, or care, about the demographic you've invented for yourself are the people who place themselves within it?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

to be fair transgendered people do face massive discrimination tho.


----------



## cesare (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be fair transgendered people do face massive discrimination tho.


And Intersex people.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be fair transgendered people do face massive discrimination tho.


 
It's not transgender people I'm moaning about. It's these new people who think themselves beyond the twin gravity wells of human biology and social conditioning and thus immune to the very concept of gender.


----------



## cesare (Oct 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not transgender people I'm moaning about. It's these new people who think themselves beyond the twin gravity wells of human biology and social conditioning and thus immune to the very concept of gender.


Yeah, well. That sounds like the shit they used to say about homosexuality back in the day.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ungendered my arse. Identification with a particular gender is not necessary, biology identifies your gender for you. If you choose to change your gender then good luck to you, but don't just go on about how society's labels don't fit you and you're far too interesting to be something so tiresome as a man or a woman. It's kind of insulting to those of us who are willing to accept that the fates have dealt us a particular hand and simply make the best of it.


 
Is there something you want to tell us, Frank?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not transgender people I'm moaning about. It's these new people who think themselves beyond the twin gravity wells of human biology and social conditioning and thus immune to the very concept of gender.


 
I'm not sure who you're trying to describe. Being a trans person doesn't necessarily fit into preconceived notions of being born with male genitalia and changing to be a girly girl, or being born with female genitalia and changing to be a manly man. As with sexuality, it's a spectrum, and it's a complex issue that can't be reduced to a few simple criteria - and being told that they have to fit into a pre-defined binary is part of what's going to make people want to find others who can sympathise.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

it isn't the fact of people wanting to break down gender barriers etc that is a problem. it is the fact that people use identity politics as a substitute for class politics (including people who use the working class as an "identity group".)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 19, 2012)

People can be disatisfied with the gender roles society allocates people with their genitals. I'm not the most "manly" man in the world, for example.

But I would not insist that this puts me on a par with "farm workers" as a victim of oppression.

There will be people who feel forced in the closet about this stuff, who feel their oppression more keenly than I do. Perhaps as an objective fact, perhaps not. It is tempting to say that at least some of these people are over-egging it.

Maybe the problem is creating a big tent in which anyone feels uncomfortable with their gender role is assigned the same status.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it isn't the fact of people wanting to break down gender barriers etc that is a problem. it is the fact that people use identity politics as a substitute for class politics (including people who use the working class as an "identity group".)


 
I think they are 2 issues that get conflated - so some people who are angry that identity politics gets in the way of class politics end up trying to deny the issues those practising identity politics are talking about altogether, rather than integrating it into something more useful. Which in turn simply means that those in various identity/minority groups will retrench their positions against what they see as an attack (which is actually often an attack anyway).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> the conference actually looks like it has some good things on it but i wish they wouldn't say this kind of shit "social awareness into praxis"


 
Social awareness can only ever be praxis anyway.
Perhaps they're talking more about "theorising the transition of social awareness into praxis". After all, it's a favourite sport of the intelligentsia to theorise while all things fall apart.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

copliker said:


> You should turn up and ask to do military service. PD is a bit short on tank drivers.


 
You never know, she might pass muster for flight training. That'd enable the workers' bomb to be delivered aerially.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ungendered my arse. Identification with a particular gender is not necessary, biology identifies your gender for you. If you choose to change your gender then good luck to you, but don't just go on about how society's labels don't fit you and you're far too interesting to be something so tiresome as a man or a woman. It's kind of insulting to those of us who are willing to accept that the fates have dealt us a particular hand and simply make the best of it.
> 
> And if you really think it's really that important for you to be recognised as the special thing you think you are rather than the ordinary thing you actually are, don't use it as an excuse to include yourself in a list of the most downtrodden and oppressed people in the world, for that is a cunt's trick. How can you be persecuted when the only people who know, or care, about the demographic you've invented for yourself are the people who place themselves within it?


 
Gender isn't just about what sort of equipment you came packaged with, it's also about social roles - both those you might wish to fit, and those society forces onto you.
And the idea that there's more than just 2 mutually-exclusive genders isn't exactly a new and "fashionable" concept flocked to by by world-weary would-be aesthetes. It's at least as old as the paleolithic. It's not generally about being too interesting to fit to the standard binary coding, more about people throughout history having not found that either of the normative gender roles fits them.
Shit, India has an entire public subculture of people who refuse to pick either of the two available choices!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

Just been watching a video with Norman Finkelstein in it where he makes some criticisms of the BDS movement and somebody accuses him of "privilege".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not transgender people I'm moaning about. It's these new people who think themselves beyond the twin gravity wells of human biology and social conditioning and thus immune to the very concept of gender.


 
Frank.

Twin gravity wells would cancel each other out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm not sure who you're trying to describe. Being a trans person doesn't necessarily fit into preconceived notions of being born with male genitalia and changing to be a girly girl, or being born with female genitalia and changing to be a manly man. As with sexuality, it's a spectrum, and it's a complex issue that can't be reduced to a few simple criteria - and being told that they have to fit into a pre-defined binary is part of what's going to make people want to find others who can sympathise.


 
You should have really fucked him over and recommended that he read some Storm Constantine.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Gender isn't just about what sort of equipment you came packaged with, it's also about social roles - both those you might wish to fit, and those society forces onto you.
> And the idea of more than 2 mutually-exclusive genders isn't exactly a new and "fashionable" concept flocked to by by world-weary would-be aesthetes. It's at least as old as the paleolithic. It's not generally about being too interesting to fit to the standard binary coding, more about people throughout history having not found that either of the normative gender roles fits them.
> Shit, India has an entire public subculture of people who refuse to pick either of the two available choices!


 
I think the concept of not conforming to a gender binary would actually be regarded with quite a lot of stigma outside a certain activist milieu - loads of people refer to "trannies" and "hermaphrodites" and that sort of thing in everyday conversation.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 19, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think they are 2 issues that get conflated - so some people who are angry that identity politics gets in the way of class politics end up trying to deny the issues those practising identity politics are talking about altogether, rather than integrating it into something more useful. Which in turn simply means that those in various identity/minority groups will retrench their positions against what they see as an attack (which is actually often an attack anyway).


 
well said.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I think the concept of not conforming to a gender binary would actually be regarded with quite a lot of stigma outside a certain activist milieu - loads of people refer to "trannies" and "hermaphrodites" and that sort of thing in everyday conversation.


 
I don't think I've ever met a hermaphrodite human.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Frank.
> 
> Twin gravity wells would cancel each other out.


 
Only if one was a negative gravity well.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think I've ever met a hermaphrodite human.


 
You almost certainly have met people with an intersex condition given that it's 1 in 20 of the population. Using "hermaphrodite" to describe somebody is well out of order btw, which is kind of the point I am making


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 19, 2012)

Horrible article on the Graun but it's partly relevant to this thread, so here ya go.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> You almost certainly have met people with an intersex condition given that it's 1 in 20 of the population. Using "hermaphrodite" to describe somebody is well out of order btw, which is kind of the point I am making


 
I meant an actual hermaphrodite.  With both male and female genitalia.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it isn't the fact of people wanting to break down gender barriers etc that is a problem. it is the fact that people use identity politics as a substitute for class politics (including people who use the working class as an "identity group".)


 
This is what has always squeezed my balls about identity politiics - that it's not about identity _per se_, which is a multi-faceted construct made up of fluid individual relationships and interpellations with people and positions, but rather about using a facet of one's identity as a bludgeon with which to beat one's way into a place on a heirarchy of oppression. That's an action that ultimately is the _sine qua non_ of representation as an identity group, IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> I meant an actual hermaphrodite. With both male and female genitalia.


 
Patriarchist! Note how you say "hermaphrodite", and not "aphrodiherm"?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> This is what has always squeezed my balls about identity politiics - that it's not about identity _per se_, which is a multi-faceted construct made up of fluid individual relationships and interpellations with people and positions, but rather about using a facet of one's identity as a bludgeon with which to beat one's way into a place on a heirarchy of oppression. That's an action that ultimately is the _sine qua non_ of representation as an identity group, IMO.


 
Or worse, to beat that way into the place _on behalf of others_.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 19, 2012)

"Community leaders", "speaking as a...."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I think the concept of not conforming to a gender binary would actually be regarded with quite a lot of stigma outside a certain activist milieu - loads of people refer to "trannies" and "hermaphrodites" and that sort of thing in everyday conversation.


 
Because we're part of a culture that is wilfully ignorant on matters of gender. That doesn't mean that things can't change.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 19, 2012)

The dreaded Qualifier.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> I don't think I've ever met a hermaphrodite human.


 
How would you know, unless they told you?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> The dreaded Qualifier.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

not really comfortable with that word being used on the thread - afaik its quite offensive isnt it?


----------



## cesare (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You should have really fucked him over and recommended that he read some Storm Constantine.


Or Tepper.

I'm reminded of Mehdi Hasan's article last week in the New Statesman, and his subsequent crying in the Huff Post over the reaction to it. This picking and choosing of who gets autonomy over their own body, and in what circumstances (in that MH example, I can be a leftie and also pro-life - o rly?). I wasn't joking in my earlier comment about homosexuality, Frank. There were the same "why should they get special treatment, why can't they be normal" type comments then (and to a lesser extent now) that you seem to think it's OK to level at transgendered and intersex people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> Only if one was a negative gravity well.


 
Nope, equal and opposing gravity wells would cause kaboom!!! Equal and non-opposing would just result in cancellation. It must be true, I saw it on Stargate SG-1!!


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> How would you know, unless they told you?


 
By examining their genitals.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 19, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Horrible article on the Graun but it's partly relevant to this thread, so here ya go.


 
I quite liked that article.  I thought she made some good points.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, equal and opposing gravity wells would cause kaboom!!! Equal and non-opposing would just result in cancellation. It must be true, I saw it on Stargate SG-1!!


 
But then opposing and non-equal would result in partial cancellation, causing the Earth to fly off out of the solar system when its gravity well is cancelled by the Sun's.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

Balbi said:


> "Community leaders", "speaking as a...."


 
As I said (IIRC on this thread) a few weeks ago, hearing someone prefix whatever they were about to say with a qualifier used to send shivers through me back in the '80s. It meant you were in for a lecture on how that person's identity group was more oppressed than someone else's and therefor not only deserved the same considerations, but *better* ones too!.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> But then opposing and non-equal would result in partial cancellation, causing the Earth to fly off out of the solar system when its gravity well is cancelled by the Sun's.


 
You say that as if it's a bad thing!!!


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 19, 2012)

8115 said:


> I quite liked that article. I thought she made some good points.


 
I agree with the jist of the article, yeah.  But the way it's written was appalling for a national newspaper.  Suppose it was in CiF sooo...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> By examining their genitals.


 
Mmm, because you live in a society, unlike the other posters on this thread, where genital examination upon meeting is common?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmm, because you live in a society, unlike the other posters on this thread, where genital examination upon meeting is common?


 
You people are so fucking uptight!


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> not really comfortable with that word being used on the thread - afaik its quite offensive isnt it?


 
Patriarchist?

I suppose so, but you don't need to fight my battles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> You people are so fucking uptight!


 
No, I just don't like blokes unzipping me and trying to grope my man-tackle!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> You people are so fucking uptight!


 
Is this thread going to degenerate into a "PICS OR GTFO" argument?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said (IIRC on this thread) a few weeks ago, hearing someone prefix whatever they were about to say with a qualifier used to send shivers through me back in the '80s. It meant you were in for a lecture on how that person's identity group was more oppressed than someone else's and therefor not only deserved the same considerations, but *better* ones too!.


 
speaking as a parent ...


----------



## Balbi (Oct 19, 2012)

Speaking as a paedophile


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

"oppressed" by the jimmy saville enquiry


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 19, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I agree with the jist of the article, yeah. But the way it's written was appalling for a national newspaper. Suppose it was in CiF sooo...


 
TBF it was originally written for the US website that she edits, so she's specifically talking about the people who post on there. It would be different in tone at least if written by anybody from the UK I think.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> "oppressed" by the jimmy saville enquiry



The priveliged non kid fucking bourgouise.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

being confused with paediatricians and the dominant symbol of your identity being shit gary glitter records


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

ridiculed in episodes of south park


----------



## Balbi (Oct 19, 2012)

Dirty macs and nhs specs


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

you can't even get your computer fixed


----------



## Balbi (Oct 19, 2012)

PC World gone mad


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

Stabbed in the back by organisers of gay pride parades


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

removing memorial plaques to jimmy saville in an attempt to wipe out history and distance the privileged from a persecuted minority


----------



## Balbi (Oct 19, 2012)

Insisting John Peel day be simply a celebration of musical diversity


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

they're even banned from wikipedia now, in the ultimate display of age-appropriate attraction privilege


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 19, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> People can be disatisfied with the gender roles society allocates people with their genitals. I'm not the most "manly" man in the world, for example.
> 
> But I would not insist that this puts me on a par with "farm workers" as a victim of oppression.
> 
> There will be people who feel forced in the closet about this stuff, who feel their oppression more keenly than I do. Perhaps as an objective fact, perhaps not. It is tempting to say that at least some of these people are over-egging it.


 
All of this.

Not fitting into an artificial dichotomy does not make you an oppressed minority, it just makes you human. Of course some people are genuinely made to suffer because of these things, but you can't just choose to be a victim of oppression because you want to use it as a stick to beat others with. 

Unfortunately my views on these issues have been warped by a small handful of utterly dreadful people. I don't think their position on the gender spectrum or their views on gender politics were what made them so dreadful, I think they were just arrogant spoilt tossers who had chosen gender politics as a device for making themselves out to be superior to other people and for generally making trouble for everyone else. But with any contentious issue you will get people who will use it to advance their own agenda, I guess it's wrong to single out gender in that respect.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 19, 2012)

Bottom line is that my politics starts from what I have in common with people, not what makes me different from them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 19, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Bottom line is that my politics starts from what I have in common with people, not what makes me different from them.


 
Mine too. Which is why I get wound up by people who deliberately set themselves apart from others.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Mine too. Which is why I get wound up by people who deliberately set themselves apart from others.


 
I think there's probably a whole host reasons why people do that - a culture of individualism, genuine feelings of alienation, etc.

So getting annoyed is understandable, but unproductive.

Also it seems to be more of an internet thing? Not something I have had to expend much energy on in real life.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

just seen this shit on a facebook 'friend's' wall...




> Scab bullying is where unionised workers on strike, were justified in attacking, ostracising, the workers who went in their place. Scab labour. What the proud radical left who fetishise this brutal bullying fail to remember is that the nature of inequality was always that 'scabs' would be workers to whom union membership probably wouldnt have been open anyway, or people disadvantaged by race/gender/immigration status. Mens wives, families, and children would be targetted, Many of us will remember the scab bullying of children quite well from the industrial climate of the seventies and eighties. Its been used as a mask for gender violence, racist violence since the Union movements started, THere is quite the left wing mythology about the need to do this now, our elite radical left, mainly white, posh shouty boys, believe that hatred of scabs is an expression of class solidarity and something to be pursued. Most notably with Goldsmiths outing lecturers who they thought were scabbing, during the last strike, I was subjected to weeks of abuse for saying that public sector strikes would not be welcoming of that nonsense. Because actually nurses, teachers, especially social workers, have another priority which is their service users. Just another way for a white male political tribe to express their need to abuse women adopted eagerly by our newly radicalised left in the UK.





> October 10 at 7:50pm · Like · 2


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

shit 'manarchists' say


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

That guy is a liberal.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> just seen this shit on a facebook 'friend's' wall...
> 
> _cab bullying is where unionised workers on strike, were justified in attacking, ostracising, the workers who went in their place. Scab labour. What the proud radical left who fetishise this brutal bullying fail to remember is that the nature of inequality was always that 'scabs' would be workers to whom union membership probably wouldnt have been open anyway, or people disadvantaged by race/gender/immigration status. Mens wives, families, and children would be targetted, Many of us will remember the scab bullying of children quite well from the industrial climate of the seventies and eighties. Its been used as a mask for gender violence, racist violence since the Union movements started, THere is quite the left wing mythology about the need to do this now, our elite radical left, mainly white, posh shouty boys, believe that hatred of scabs is an expression of class solidarity and something to be pursued. Most notably with Goldsmiths outing lecturers who they thought were scabbing, during the last strike, I was subjected to weeks of abuse for saying that public sector strikes would not be welcoming of that nonsense. Because actually nurses, teachers, especially social workers, have another priority which is their service users. Just another way for a white male political tribe to express their need to abuse women adopted_ eagerly by our newly radicalised left in the UK.


 
Oh god I recognise that awful writing style, please tell me it's not _her_ still going on about _that_...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

and now she's backed up by a new generation of identity politics whackos


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

> What the proud radical left who fetishise this brutal bullying fail to remember is that the nature of inequality was always that 'scabs' would be workers to whom union membership probably wouldnt have been open anyway


 
Why would they want to remember something that's so manifestly untrue?


----------



## Balbi (Oct 24, 2012)

What they fail to remember is that if we go back long enough in time the were no unions, and so their structure is a hegemonic imprint onto the freedoms of individuals, crushing class, gender, race and all others beneath its subs payment, tea and biscuits meeting heel.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

i think you're brashly overlooking the tremendous oppression meted out by patriarchal white male union members down the centuries against black, queer-anarchist vegans in the history of the European Trade Union movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

_First they came for the scabs and i did nothing._


----------



## rekil (Oct 24, 2012)

I was wondering what that weird stuff was doing on the twitter machine feed. PD should definitely take a firm pro-scab position.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 24, 2012)

After all, it's not like the bosses have ever been racist, or cynically used racism to divide the workers during times of struggle. Oh no, never, only the workers are racist, after all.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Look at that lunatic fuckwit writing that stuff! Look! Proof that nothing they say is worth looking at! There! Right there!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

copliker said:


> I was wondering what that weird stuff was doing on the twitter machine feed. PD should definitely take a firm pro-scab position.


 
I feel another split coming on. A firm pro-scab position? I don't think so. Scabs must be the human guinea pigs on which we test the workers' bomb


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Look at that lunatic fuckwit writing that stuff! Look! Proof that nothing they say is worth looking at! There! Right there!


 
she's not on the margins when it comes to these groups

ETA - to push this point, she posted this on a thread on the wall of the former UCLAN SU president, without a single comment challenging this position from the 7 or so others posting (infact they were in agreement, as was the former SU President).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Are you still a student then hooverbag?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

no, this is all a social hangover

ETA - here's the same SU president noted above refusing to send delegations to NCAFC's demonstrations against fees and the repeal of EMA last year because they weren't seen as safe spaces for disabled students


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> no, this is all a social hangover
> 
> ETA - here's the same SU president noted above refusing to send delegations to NCAFC's demonstrations against fees and the repeal of EMA last year because they weren't seen as safe spaces for disabled students



That article doesn't sound as if was just a "safe space" issue, more like an organisational one.


> Two weeks before the demonstration we had absolutely no idea about where the demonstration was actually going, where the coaches should drop students off. We were told a vague area and now they’re telling us something different.”


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

the organisational questions were posed in terms of safety - the whole idea of risk-assessing an NCAFC demo is pretty absurd you have to admit. and refusing to put on coaches to support it was a downright sin.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

There's a basic duty of care to make sure that their members know where they're going and what to expect, surely?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

i think there's a basic duty to support effective campaigns which are not always 'safe' (if you want them to achieve anything, anyway). there is however a new breed of identity politics politician, the above former SU prez being one of them, who see 'accessibility' or 'safety issues' as enough of a reason to cancel campaigns for everyone. two years ago, for instance, an occupation at Sheffield University basically shut itself down after occupying a basement level lecture theatre in the Arts Tower, and deciding without prompt from the authorities that potentially if management cut the power to the lift it would be an inaccessible space for those in wheelchairs and thus unacceptable as an occupied area. unfortunately however their were no convenient ground-floor level lecture theatres to occupy and University security was obviously on red alert having had one of their rooms occupied already. it lasted about a week and a half before exhausting itself and its dwindling attendants with this issue and collapsing.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> just seen this shit on a facebook 'friend's' wall...


 
You might aswell spit it out DU. Who was this? Where?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

sihhi said:


> You might aswell spit it out DU. Who was this? Where?


He's already linked an article to her.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

also the first thing passed at all these occupations was a 'safe spaces' policy, reinforcing the hyper-sensitive and reactionary crap we've talked about earlier on this thread... did you ever see Occupy London's policy?



> 1. Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.
> *2. Respect each other’s physical and emotional boundaries, always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries.*
> 3. Be aware of the space you take up and the positions and privileges you bring, including racial, class and gender privilege.
> 4. Avoid assuming the opinions and identifications of other participants.
> ...


This wishy washy crap gets everywhere... and it paralyzed most of the student occupations believe me


----------



## sihhi (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> He's already linked an article to her.


 
So is it OK to name "Reni Eddo-Lodge is a student on the Guardian's positive action scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/10/a-level-grade-state-students-excluded

Now a freelancer for the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/29/rowan-williams-identity-politics-panel
"Liberation doesn't damage society. Privilege denying does. People of every sexuality, gender, race and creed need to recognise that the fight for equality is one we all have to take responsibility for. The politics of the people is nothing if it doesn't include all the people."


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

i would point out that she wasn't the author of the original quote defending scabs, though she did support it


----------



## sihhi (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i would point out that she wasn't the author of the original quote defending scabs, though she did support it


 
That's crucially important you can't slander someone on the basis of something they haven't said. 

It sounds like middle-class student tantrums, depressing and unhelpful, but not indicative of a wider shift.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

i never said she said it, just making that more clear now we're using her name

ETA and what makes it indicative of a broader shift is her significant place as a voice of the 'student movement'... i can bring you thousands more examples seriously, all over the place. the shift is well and truly there and what's worse it's legally empowered through a lot of access and vaguely worded anti-prejudice policy which has already been passed


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 24, 2012)

Yeah that misunderstanding is probably my fault more than DU's tbh.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i never said she said it, just making that more clear now we're using her name
> 
> ETA and what makes it indicative of a broader shift is her significant place as a voice of the 'student movement'... i can bring you thousands more examples seriously, all over the place. the shift is well and truly there and what's worse it's legally empowered through a lot of access and vaguely worded anti-prejudice policy which has already been passed


 
Here's how it looks to me: Fear as in people being afraid but unwilling to admit. I am afraid. Others are afraid. People see long prison sentences for the student demos of 2010-11, they see a 6-month sentence for swimming, they see years for taking jeans from an already smashed up shop. But instead of admit the fear, they try to cover it up as if they are helping disabled people. It's easier to say 'we are helping disabled people' rather than 'we are cowards'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 24, 2012)

Let's not forget the scabs who are just trying to raise money to send their kid to London to audition for ballet school.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Here's how it looks to me: Fear as in people being afraid but unwilling to admit. I am afraid. Others are afraid. People see long prison sentences for the student demos of 2010-11, they see a 6-month sentence for swimming, they see years for taking jeans from an already smashed up shop. But instead of admit the fear, they try to cover it up as if they are helping disabled people. It's easier to say 'we are helping disabled people' rather than 'we are cowards'.


Also, add in a bit of beating around the bush "politeness" instead of just saying something along the lines of "look you shambolic bunch of wasters, if you can't fucking get your act together and even tell us the route of this demo so we can make sure we've got parking/access/toilets etc for the students with disabilities, we can't organise it this end. So sort yourselves out!"


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Although it's good to be a bit polite first, like


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

sihhi said:


> That's crucially important you can't slander someone on the basis of something they haven't said.
> 
> It sounds like middle-class student tantrums, depressing and unhelpful, but not indicative of a wider shift.


I thought we'd already talked about whether this manarchist business was indicative of a wider shift earlier in the thread, and the general consensus was probably not.

Or have I misunderstood?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 24, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let's not forget the scabs who are just trying to raise money to send their kid to London to audition for ballet school.


 
Or those brave scabs who just couldn't give a fuck about their fellow human beings.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> also the first thing passed at all these occupations was a 'safe spaces' policy, reinforcing the hyper-sensitive and reactionary crap we've talked about earlier on this thread... did you ever see Occupy London's policy?
> 
> 
> This wishy washy crap gets everywhere... and it paralyzed most of the student occupations believe me


What's wrong with the one you highlighted? Actually, revol's already explained that to you earlier in the thread.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> What's wrong with the one you highlighted? Actually, revol's already explained that to you earlier in the thread.


 
what does 'emotional boundaries' mean? in my experience, it can regularly be interpreted as far as disagreeing on any level with a self-identifying disabled queer vegan on pretty much any issue, and often makes them feel as 'unsafe' in your presence as if you'd attacked them with a baseball bat


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> I thought we'd already talked about whether this manarchist business was indicative of a wider shift earlier in the thread, and the general consensus was probably not.
> 
> Or have I misunderstood?


 
certain posters keep saying it's not indicative of a wider shift despite mounting evidence of its existence to the contrary, but i don't think a consensus has been reached


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> certain posters keep saying it's not indicative of a wider shift despite mounting evidence of its existence to the contrary, but i don't think a consensus has been reached


The only "mounting evidence" (to the extent that you consider those two clips to be evidence) so far is being supplied by you, and you've already accepted you've got a personal beef with it all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

as did you. anyway, it's not all supplied by me - we've already seen Manchester AF adopting these platforms alongside several other posters recounting their own scenarios. and - sorry if pointing out numerous examples of where these features are embedding themselves within established structures of the political youth movement doesn't convince you - as opposed to folks dawdling along the thread, broadly agreeing with the criticisms being made but then without any particular basis declaring that it's probably not much of an issue.

i wouldn't be so pissed off with it if it wasn't growing and strangling everything potentially productive it came into contact with


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> what does 'emotional boundaries' mean? in my experience, it can regularly be interpreted as far as disagreeing on any level with a self-identifying disabled queer vegan on pretty much any issue, and often makes them feel as 'unsafe' in your presence as if you'd attacked them with a baseball bat


This has happened to you, personally? What were you disagreeing about?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> as did you. anyway, it's not all supplied by me - we've already seen Manchester AF adopting these platforms alongside several other posters recounting their own scenarios. and - sorry if pointing out numerous examples of where these features are embedding themselves within established structures of the political youth movement doesn't convince you - as opposed to folks dawdling along the thread, broadly agreeing with the criticisms being made but then without any particular basis declaring that it's probably not much of an issue.
> 
> i wouldn't be so pissed off with it if it wasn't growing and strangling everything potentially productive it came into contact with


As did I what?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> as did you. anyway, it's not all supplied by me - we've already seen Manchester AF adopting these platforms alongside several other posters recounting their own scenarios. and - sorry if pointing out numerous examples of where these features are embedding themselves within established structures of the political youth movement doesn't convince you - as opposed to folks dawdling along the thread, broadly agreeing with the criticisms being made but then without any particular basis declaring that it's probably not much of an issue.
> 
> i wouldn't be so pissed off with it if it wasn't growing and strangling everything potentially productive it came into contact with


Manchester AF did not 'adopt these platforms'!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

the most regular argument in which it happens is usually over whether or not the use of the word 'cunt' as an insult should be a massive political sticking-point as to whether or not someone is incorrigibly sexist - note the argument is already biased against the person arguing against a hysterical over-reaction to naughty words by the fact that their opponent has already decided the issue itself is intrinsically sexist, threatening, etc, and so broaching it on any level is an emotional transgression too far to bear


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Manchester AF did not 'adopt these platforms'!


 
i may have remembered it wrong - what was the specifics about that motion mentioned earlier in the thread then?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> the most regular argument in which it happens is usually over whether or not the use of the word 'cunt' as an insult should be a massive political sticking-point as to whether or not someone is incorrigibly sexist - note the argument is already biased against the person arguing against a hysterical over-reaction to naughty words by the fact that their opponent has already decided the issue itself is intrinsically sexist, threatening, etc, and so broaching it on any level is an emotional transgression too far to bear


Christ, that argument's as old as the bloody hills. Nothing to do with "manarchism".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i may have remembered it wrong - what was the specifics about that motion mentioned earlier in the thread then?


There was no motion! Go back and look or come back tmw.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

ok, an Afed initiative at the Anarchist Boot Fair 'examining privilege theory as a new starting point' then. still indicative of changing waters no?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Christ, that argument's as old as the bloody hills. Nothing to do with "manarchism".


 
no but the new culture allowing for certain people to get their own way _is_


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> ok, an Afed initiative at the Anarchist Boot Fair 'examining privilege theory as a new starting point' then. still indicative of changing waters no?


Quite possibly, in a limited circle -  but as i said at the start i still haven't come across this sort of thing - ever.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2012)

if you'd been suffering through student/NUS politics for the last few years - not that i wear that as a badge of honour - you couldn't have failed to recognise it. what's more you'd see it creeping in at the edges of more mainstream political debate and culture too - the SWP for example is already rotted inside out with it.

and what's more, NUS is unfortunately the training ground for the wankstain centre left politicians of the future, and currently it's a factory churning out privilege politics brats


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> ok, an Afed initiative at the Anarchist Boot Fair 'examining privilege theory as a new starting point' then. still indicative of changing waters no?


I went to the trouble of finding out how that even probably got on the agenda *at all* - didn't you read it, or don't you believe me?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

It's the (a)politics of safety, it's cowardly crap. "Ethics" one of the better things Badiou has written takes it apart as retreat from proper politics.

Just as macho posturing was a great way of manoveuring in the 60s and 70s, this whiny shit is its inverse means in the now.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> if you'd been suffering through student/NUS politics for the last few years - not that i wear that as a badge of honour - you couldn't have failed to recognise it. what's more you'd see it creeping in at the edges of more mainstream political debate and culture too - the SWP for example is already rotted inside out with it.
> 
> and what's more, NUS is unfortunately the training ground for the wankstain centre left politicians of the future, and currently it's a factory churning out privilege politics brats


I haven't been, i never have.

It's always been that sort of thing in one way or another hasn't it (the NUS and student wankery i mean)? To focus on this would be to admit that student politics basically sets the context within which radical politics not only does but can happen surely? Or to import the obsessions of that scene into wider politics. I repeat, i have never once came across this mortal danger. Despite recognising how shit it is.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

revol68 said:


> It's the (a)politics of safety, it's cowardly crap. "Ethics" one of the better things Badiou has written takes it apart as retreat from proper politics.
> 
> Just as macho posturing was a great way of manoveuring in the 60s and 70s, this whiny shit is its inverse means in the now.


Macho posturing breeds macho response. Whiny shit breeds whiny response. Etc.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 24, 2012)

Yeah ive never came across it in northern ireland but friends involved in student politics in England(i know i mock them too) and the wider millieu around it have certainly experienced it, though left wing youth politics in england do seem very faddish.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

A Class Struggle Anarchist Analysis of Privilege Theory – from the Women's Caucus. 



*Aims and definitions*

The purpose of this paper is to outline a class struggle anarchist analysis of Privilege Theory. Many of us feel “privilege” is a useful term for discussing oppressions that go beyond economic class. It can help us to understand how these oppressions affect our social relations and the intersections of our struggles within the economic working class. It is written by members of the women’s caucus of the Anarchist Federation. It does not represent all our views and is part of an ongoing discussion within the federation.
http://afed.org.uk/blog/state/327-a...rivilege-theory--from-the-womens-caucus-.html

This is the Anarchist Federation discussion document. It's all there: privilege, people of colour, kyriarchy, intersectionality, etc. The whole US radical liberal internet terminology as a bloc.


----------



## Nice one (Oct 25, 2012)

not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene _is_ populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.

1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).

Now i don't know what you call this. The privilege crowd will have all manner of words that defines and explain it, but two things spring to mind

a - would he have acted that way if the person hadn't been a young asian female?
b - did he feel he had the authority to act this way because he was secretary of the group - an appointment given by a mate of his?



2. Meeting set up to discuss the structure idea of this same group. Again the young indian female anarchist put forward her ideas about she had previously submitted. One faux-lumpen white male middle aged anarchist who's been hanging off the anarchist scene for years suddenly pipes up that the discussion should end and the meeting stop now. When it didn't he got up and walked out followed by five other (white male anarchists). I'd never seen anything like it before. Should point out these five had had a meeting together immediately prior to this one and came to this meeting late, as a group.

One of the people walking out was also the facilitator of the first meeting above.

Now, being a white working class male anarchist whose been hanging off the anarchist scene for years i haven't seen this kind of thing happen before mainly because there has never really been a young female asian woman who has wanted to be an active participant in the anarchist scene before. Can it be explained by importing wholesale social theory from the states? Whatever you want to call it it looks bad. To be honest i'd be happy with just plain old racism/sexism.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

On the face of it, and without any knowledge of any further background, I don't think that specialised terminology is required to explain that. We already have the words "racist", "sexist" and "dickheads", some or all of which may be applicable.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

I agree, Nice one. I'm not sure that pointing at a social theory, and arguing/discussing whether the theory itself is valid is particularly useful. You can spend an awful lot of time picking apart what's right or wrong or neutral about a theory, and in doing so avoid looking at behaviour. 

We could pick apart the examples that you've given in terms of privilege theory (and that could be interesting if anyone's inclined) but - for me - those are examples of behaviour that would have annoyed me if I'd been at that meeting. My annoyance would have been because (a) as a new member I'd have found it pretty unpalatable to see someone trying to take control of a meeting in that way; (b) it would have left me reconsidering whether anarchist principles were anything more than theoretical language and that when it comes down to it all of that goes out of the window when practically presented with opposing viewpoints;and (c) on the face of it, yes that looks like sexist/racist behaviour in addition to the wresting dominance aspect. I'd be interested to know what happened afterwards . . . inevitably there'll be differences of opinion, fallings out etc in any group, but how was it resolved?

I read Nigel's AFED link, but I read it trying not to focus on the words of kyriarchy, intersectionality, etc etc. Once I dispensed with those distractions, I found it hard to disagree with most of the meaning/reasoning.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> I read Nigel's AFED link, but I read it trying not to focus on the words of kyriarchy, intersectionality, etc etc. Once I dispensed with those distractions, I found it hard to disagree with most of the meaning/reasoning.


 
The point has never been that it's impossible to describe real phenomena or make useful points while using that language. It's that the discourse carries other baggage with it, implying a whole number of things about the issues it's describing.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

I quite like the fact that these arguments are happening. Much better than a situation where women, people with disabilities, people with different national/cultural/ethnic heritage etc etc don't even bother getting involved.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The point has never been that it's impossible to describe real phenomena or make useful points while using that language. It's that the discourse carries other baggage with it, implying a whole number of things about the issues it's describing.


Your point may have been that. There have been many other points made though including some that question the validity of the real phenomena at all.

Edit: by real phenomena I assume you mean examples of sexist, racist etc behaviour.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Your point may have been that. There have been many other points made though including some that question the validity of the real phenomena at all.


 
Yes, some people have, although not too many in this discussion. Which doesn't change that the theoretical approach used in this article to describe those "real phenomena" is a US liberal one, implying things congenial to US radical liberalism.

You pointed out earlier that, if you mentally stripped out the discourse the article is framed in, it makes some sensible arguments. So what exactly of benefit does the framework add to those arguments? And more importantly, what assumptions is it smuggling in?


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, some people have, although not too many in this discussion. Which doesn't change that the theoretical approach used in this article to describe those "real phenomena" is a US liberal one, implying things congenial to US radical liberalism.
> 
> You pointed out earlier that, if you mentally stripped out the discourse the article is framed in, it makes some sensible arguments. So what exactly of benefit does the framework add to those arguments? And more importantly, what assumptions is it smuggling in?



There may not have been many, but lack of volume doesn't point to lack of force. I'd rather the points were made though, because I think that it's better to have these things out in the open.

What I think the theory adds (potentially) is ongoing analysis. If nothing else, a reminder that social structures change and that we should (at least be open to) change with them. It's natural to have a degree of resistance to anything different to what we think is right, when our view of what's right may have been formed at an earlier stage of life. So when I do as you ask and look for the benefits - it potentially serves as a way/method of my questioning my own assumptions and opinions on an ongoing basis to the extent that I don't already. Another benefit is that it's a more interesting way of looking at how power manifests and how this fluctuates. A third benefit is that it potentially serves as a way of encouraging analysis of behaviour as it happens rather than labelling a number of behaviours in aggregate over a period of time e.g. pointing behaviour out there and then rather than labelling someone as, for example, "a sexist". Fourthly, it potentially encourages people to get involved/engaged on the basis that at least it's being taken into consideration.

What does it smuggle in? That's quite tricky, because some of what has been pointed out as a downside isn't new, and can't really be laid at the door of privilege theory. I'm thinking here about identity politics, and the divisive/segregational nature of those. Privilege theory in itself doesn't introduce that, or smuggle it in - it was there already. What it might do, though, is provide identity politics with a seemingly valid theoretical vehicle in which to operate with less challenge and eventually being part and parcel of "privilege theory" when it isn't. The other objection I have is that it seems to encourage the "speaking on behalf of ..." aspect which makes me cross  Also, I really don't like the spoken "check your privilege" which seems to serve to close down discussion and throw people on the defensive. 

Is that enough to be going on with? I can think of loads more, but it'll end up an essay and tl:dr


----------



## Athos (Oct 25, 2012)

Nice one said:


> not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene _is_ populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.
> 
> 1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).
> 
> ...


 
The machinations for control of left wing groupuscles has gone on forever.  It's only recently that it's been increasingly labeled racist/sexist, partly because of the growing involvement of people other than white males! (Though I don't doubt that such prejudices do exist within those groups.)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2012)

Nice one said:


> not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene _is_ populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.
> 
> 1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).
> 
> ...


 
This has happened countless times at London Anarchist meetings (and I've been at meetings with you where it has) to all sorts of people and is down to a variety of reasons - I don't think the person in question was treated the way she was due to ethnicity or gender - however I wouldn't blame her or new people for thinking it might be - and it is an illustration of the lack of any real politics when an amorphous group comes together just because most of them think they're class struggle anarchists who live in London so should work together on that sole basis.

None of that is a reason for not examining "privilege" or whatever you want to call it of course I think there is a need to address sexism, racism, and homophobia within all sections of society including the activist scene.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2012)

My mum loved it, she didn't think at all that this document (and remember its not been adopted by the AF, it's a discussion piece, produced for the internal bulletin i presume) was a classic example of the sort of exclusions that come with the small-private-liberal-arts-college-ification of the soppy end of anarchism at all. She didn't feel alienated by the language at all, and didn't feel that there was a contradiction in the demand that other people _must_ take up the use of these technical terms as they were coined by 'those at the forefront of struggle' and so best expressed her own experiences. She particularly didn't feel that the point made about looking at things in this sort of way makes for great propaganda due to its inherent inclusivity to be at all laughable. 

She also wanted me to add in a tokenistic way the the caveat that her thoughts on this documents responses to the issues are exactly that, thoughts on these _responses_, not on the issues of sexism, racism etc Just to cover her back like.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

My dad reckons it's shit and someone's pretending it's a discussion document when it's commentary dressed up as discussion.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2012)

Going with the presumption this was produced in the Internal Bulletin i would be be very interested in seeing what, if any, responses there were. I don't think there's much chance of that happening though.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Blimey, I didn't realise that AFED internal bulletins were for public consumption by way of a link.

My dad also says that people should cut the fucking waffle out and look at who's feeling oppressed by it all.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> There may not have been many, but lack of volume doesn't point to lack of force. I'd rather the points were made though, because I think that it's better to have these things out in the open.
> 
> What I think the theory adds (potentially) is ongoing analysis. If nothing else, a reminder that social structures change and that we should (at least be open to) change with them. It's natural to have a degree of resistance to anything different to what we think is right, when our view of what's right may have been formed at an earlier stage of life. So when I do as you ask and look for the benefits - it potentially serves as a way/method of my questioning my own assumptions and opinions on an ongoing basis to the extent that I don't already. Another benefit is that it's a more interesting way of looking at how power manifests and how this fluctuates. A third benefit is that it potentially serves as a way of encouraging analysis of behaviour as it happens rather than labelling a number of behaviours in aggregate over a period of time e.g. pointing behaviour out there and then rather than labelling someone as, for example, "a sexist". Fourthly, it potentially encourages people to get involved/engaged on the basis that at least it's being taken into consideration.
> 
> ...


 
Don't have time to properly reply to any of this at the moment, but this is pretty much all spot on for me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> just seen this shit on a facebook 'friend's' wall...


 
It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't so inaccurate, but it's a complete fucking confabulation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> the organisational questions were posed in terms of safety - the whole idea of risk-assessing an NCAFC demo is pretty absurd you have to admit. and refusing to put on coaches to support it was a downright sin.


 
That they used the supposed safety of disabled students as a justification for non-participation says quite a lot in terms of *their* failure to "check their privilege".
But then, questioning such people merely evinces *our* inability to check our privilege, in their eyes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Here's how it looks to me: Fear as in people being afraid but unwilling to admit. I am afraid. Others are afraid. People see long prison sentences for the student demos of 2010-11, they see a 6-month sentence for swimming, they see years for taking jeans from an already smashed up shop. But instead of admit the fear, they try to cover it up as if they are helping disabled people. It's easier to say 'we are helping disabled people' rather than 'we are cowards'.


 
I can't find anything to disagree with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Or those brave scabs who just couldn't give a fuck about their fellow human beings.


 
Do scabs have the emotional and moral depth to give a fuck, though? They are scabs, after all!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Christ, that argument's as old as the bloody hills. Nothing to do with "manarchism".


 
Great way to avoid having to make a coherent argument, though.

"I can't debate with you, the violent sexism inherent to your use of the word 'cunt' renders such debate unsafe for me!".

1980s. Slight return.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Don't have time to properly reply to any of this at the moment, but this is pretty much all spot on for me.


Cheers. Although I suppose I should point out that I was in a reflective mood at that hour in the morning and inclined to give the matter more reflection than I would normally do. The grim reality is that I would (and have  ) probably normally get quite exasperated by it. Pretty much in the way I get exasperated when people hold up an equal opportunities policy or the like and say "wtf! What a useless equal opportunities policy, you can't do x y or z with that and it doesn't even mention class!" and my reaction is "it's not meant to, you idiot, all it's doing is covering the employers' back not some great way of magically creating a fairer workplace". If you see what I mean.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2012)

Nice one said:


> not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene _is_ populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.
> 
> 1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).
> 
> ...


 
Scene-ism pure and simple. There are always cliques (and this applies across the political spectrum, not just to the anarcho _milieu_) that try and "capture" new developments. In my experience it's something done by people who talk about politics a lot, but *do* little as a matter of policy. I could give examples, but I'd rather not side-track the debate any further.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2012)

On the subject of the word 'cunt' - I love it. But I'm okay with other people not liking it, and if I'm bandying it about and someone asks me to try to dial it back because they don't, I'm not going to be a dick about it. I don't want to go out of my way to offend someone. If I did, that would say more about me being a self-entitled twat than the person who, for whatever reason, was offended by something.

If that person is being a dick about it though, then I'd question their approach to asking me to go easy on it. But I can't see a single thing wrong with trying to just be a nice person. It's not like my use of the word cunt helps me be better at politics. It's not essential.

The insistence on the right to be a prick and offend whoever you want, just because you don't like being asked to not offend someone, is pretty fucking dickish. It's not all or nothing. You can give someone respect without it being a case of having your agency taken away from you.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

Note the only concrete modern-day application given is: "certain strands of radical feminism have refused to accept the validity of trans* struggles, keeping trans women out of women’s spaces (see the controversies over Radfem 2012 and some of the workshops at Women Up North 2012 over their “women born women” policies)." Apparently this means "the _most oppressed_ get the shitty end of both sticks (in this case cisnormativity and patriarchy), with feminism, the movement that is supposed to be at the forefront of fighting the oppression that affects both parties (patriarchy) failing at one of its sharpest intersections." (There's no olympics but the most oppressed are the "trans women". Why?)

There is worry about transsexuals (why the insistence on joining RadFem 2012, if they don't want you?), but not about why working-class women are largely absent from the feminist movement (that's the overall opinion of a w/class anarcha-feminist) or are largely absent and sidelined from the anti-cuts efforts.

Note how the characterisation of "capitalist privilege" or "class privilege" is comic-book:
"Somebody born into a family who owns a chain of supermarkets or factories can, when they inherit their fortune, forgo it. They can collectivise their empire and give it to the workers, go and work in it themselves for the same share of the profits as everybody else. Capitalists can, if they choose, give up their privilege. This makes it OK for us to think of them as bad people if they don't, and justified in taking it from them by force in a revolutionary situation."

That's it. What of people whose families owned one supermarket or owned one factory? Whose family connections because their dads were architects opens doors for them? People whose parents were doctors and so get given money and the inside tips on how to train and secure that position? What about people whose parents are managers in the supermarket (not owners) bossing around everyone else, nice homes, nice cars, hotel holidays, trips to the zoo but making others redundant when the time comes? What of people whose parents are accountants to lots of people owning just one supermarket or one factory, enabling their capitalist behaviour? 

(P.S. Do we need to thank them for letting us think of capitalists as bad people. Am I justified in taking their factory if it's not a revolutionary situation? Are white racists not bad people, because their privilege is somehow un-removable?)


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> She particularly didn't feel that the point made about looking at things in this sort of way makes for great propaganda due to its inherent inclusivity to be at all laughable.


  

I need someone to translate kyriarchy into our language before I can explain it to my mum.

It's quite a hefty document but



> "men showing weakness, emotion and a capacity for caring labour are punished by patriarchy for letting the side down and giving women the opportunity to challenge their oppression"


 
isn't true. 

Men aren't punished for this, if anything they are positively lauded for this. Look at the government concern to recruit male primary school teachers because women dominate the sector now. Men working in care homes are not victimised and put on lower job specifications because they are part of the caring sector workforce and are male.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

Re: *Nice one*'s post - it's up to the other 75 people at the meeting to challenge the unacceptable behaviour, the question is will using privilege theory instead of a more blunt 'who chose you to be Y' 'steady on, other have yet to X' 'let Z say what they want more directly' achieve what you want. Like others have said it sounds like the internal politics of a group that doesn't know what it is or what it's doing, or that those folks in charge would have squeezed against anyone new. Some people really like being in 'charge' of things, having lots of roles, even being the ones who do X or Y. We can't know the exact situation from what you've posted either, so it's impossible to know if the man would have done if she wasn't a woman.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

The only other vaguely recent reference to the importance of privilege theory in social struggles is: 



> "For instance, overwhelmingly white, middle class feminist organisations of the 60s and 70s have been criticised by women of colour and disabled women for focusing solely on the legalisation of abortion at a time when Puerto-Rican women and disabled women faced forced sterilisation, and many women lacked access to essential services during pregnancy and childbirth. Although the availability of abortion certainly wasn’t irrelevant to these women, the campaigns* failed to also consider the affordability of abortion*, and completely ignored the concerns of women being denied the right to have a child."




The description is something of a lie, radical organisations always sought and demanded free abortion on demand. If some feminist groups didn't, maybe NOW was split on the issue although I can't recall it, it was because the adopted their chosen politics due to the weakness of the movement, it was NEVER as strong as it is sometimes claimed. On Puerto Rican women, this was a policy applied only to the island itself, and was slowly overcome throughout the 1970s by popular struggle. There were classist inducements to sterilisation but it was not in the 1970s at least anything like a programme of forced sterilisation. It's an example of US colonial control over Puerto Rico, which nationalists in Puerto Rico of many stripes fought back against. It's true to point out that groups in a home country have little cared about the demands within a colony - but isn't that like a truism?

More generally the AF, an organisation for struggle on the British mainland, only refers to the experiences of 1960s 1970s America leading up to and after Roe v Wade. It doesn't mention the experience of northern Ireland: those in the 6 counties were not sterilised and not given reproductive rights, until much more recently. It doesn't mention the examinations of vagina and hymen performed upon immigrant wives coming to Britain for the first time. It doesn't mention why the struggle against the deportation of Hong Kong women in the 1970s and 1980s was so weak, but it focuses on a US colony. 

As butchersapron has noted it's coming out of a *US* liberal arts college perspective. It's been a long journey route, but the decline of autonomous class organisation (the TUC can switch on 2 million on strike but switch it off just as easily) over the past 30 years combined with the technological improvements to the internet (massively US-dominated in output) mean it has finally come to British activist groups via the internet. This doesn't mean it's on the rise in general. 



> "Most feminist groups now tend to talk about “reproductive rights” rather than “abortion rights”


This doesn't feel like much a step forward at all, because it allows the right to step in and claim 'the man' has some sort of 'reproductive right' (a nonsense on stilts) on a par with the woman's "reproductive rights". I like 'Abortion rights' (here, everywhere. free for all, for all time, every time etc etc)

"*The reason we need to organise autonomously is that we need to be free of the presence of privilege to speak freely.*" I agree with the point here, in general but, having said all of this, it blames some women for wanting to organise autonomously as 'women born as women', in the Rad-Fem 2012. "we must acknowledge that privilege theory does not, of necessity, lead to liberalism and cross-class struggles. It may do so when it is used by liberals and reformists, but not when used by revolutionary class struggle anarchists." It celebrates the effort against Rad-Fem "One positive that’s come out of these recent examples is the joining together of feminist and trans* activist groups to challenge the entry policy of Radfem 2012. This is leading to more communication, solidarity and the possibility of joint actions between these groups." If you are not interested in cross-class struggles, why celebrate the joining up of certain feminist and transsexual women (ie those born men) activist groups. Doesn't that mean trampling the rights of RadFem to organise autonomously?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

When it states "We have to challenge ourselves to look out for campaigns that, due to the privilege of those who initiate them, lack awareness of how an issue differs across intersections." It *doesn't* mention a more concrete class-based example such as London's 'antigentrification' or 'housing struggles' being monopolised by liberal charity types (who often have fairly wealthy undeclared incomes). Perhaps London is unique but entering the central London activist world is like crossing a warp field from an ordinary mixed but mostly working-class suburb. (It _feels_ like another city to me at Islington anyway so that might just be me.)

Or take the case of the very recent environmental anti-climate change movement (dominated/monopolised by C.A.C.C. and the wilder edge of Plane Stupid), their sample actions included: an attempt to block the functioning _from the outside_ of a coal-fired power station, not from the productive workforce or from the area whose power it supplied, and then a position paper demanding a surcharge on airline firms 'to end the prevalence of cheap flights'.

Or take the case of anti-deportation struggles always monopolised and dominated by middle-class people desperate to tell the world 'death/torture awaits X if X is deported' in horrid foreign regimes. Note how rarely the people involved or under threat directly communicates, how rarely why it's in the interests of indigenous working-class people to not have struggles divided by citizenship status is stressed (If the visa lasted longer than 2 years at a time, you would see a higher degree of class struggle from East Europeans). (Border controls in the Carribbean make it nigh-on impossible to organise essential cross-island solidarity actions, so supplies and production are switched to another island)

Sometimes the exaggerations backfire and you get different anti-racist groups speaking in totally different languages about the various regimes.

In Germany when liberal Kurdish campaigns struggle against deportation to Turkey, it's on the implicit basis that they are special cases from the more general failure to meet citizenship demands imposed upon all migrants from Turkey, this draws fire from the liberal Turkish integrationist advancement campaigns who think there should be no special allowances, if you are a German citizen you stay, if you are no longer considered a refugee you leave. 

When asylum campaigners tried to extend allowance for Kosovan families to be accepted in Britain it was on the basis that the Serbian regime was so monstrous that this was a necessity. By 2002 when the Milosevic regime had long collapsed (in 2000), it still argued that Kosovo, even with a KFOR occupation dividing the separate communities was tantamount to death for a Kosovan. It instantly counter-mobilised the right to score an easy victory "

It's a similar thing with Czechs and Poles who are immigrants here as EU and asylum seeker Romani people from Poland and Czech Republic. 'Why they (gypsies) get help but not me? They (British immigration) didn't let my girlfriend come, but they let gypsies.' The middle-class asylum seeker struggle can only assist the Romani at as the immigrant East Europeans see the expense of themselves. 'They are dragging us down. They don't dress like Europeans, they wear black skirts to the pavement.' 

The pro-Palestinian rights movement, often they are monopolised by figures eager to outdo one another on the activist superiority of the demands (middle-class obsession deriving from the worthless emptiness of middle-class lives). Hence, calls for Israel's ambassador to be withdrawn (but no corresponding calls for the rest of the world to withdraw British embassies for its invasion of Iraq), a general boycott of everything Israeli rather than one targetting firms that operate on the back of IDF-apartheid in the territories.

What of the case of anti-prison struggles, it's eased off now, but for a while, it was let's out-do one another with calls for the abolition of prisons as a whole, or for the total removal of all women in prisons. Those demands weren't taken seriously by working-class people - including women - in general, or even by by working-class ex-cons (who knew what a mountain it would be to climb especially when you've only got a winter coat and pair of DMs). So now it's more concrete and attempting to communicate with serving prisoners what the direction should be. It's worth wondering about "privilege" in a prisoners' rights movement dominated by those who aren't prisoners.

_Introducing fancy language into things_. It has ruined literary festivals or talking about books for ordinary people. It has also ruined 'the law' and legal concepts - these are made to be impenetrable. No one human really wants to go through employment law or arbitration law - even though those things are crucial.

Before 1948 and Labour's reforms, it used to be compulsory to pass a Latin test in order to study medicine at Oxbridge, ostensibly for physiological knowledge, in fact as a barrier to retain the class character of the profession. (Oxbridge even had its own MPs until the same time) Isn't there a danger of the same thing, a danger of "Master's Degree privilege" - understanding 'intersectionality' - being the barrier that _keeps people out,_ as much as it supposedly helps headscarved Turkish old ladies in?


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

How do anarchists balance the right of women to autonomously self-organise with decrying identity politics?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> My mum loved it, she didn't think at all that this document (and remember its not been adopted by the AF, it's a discussion piece, produced for the internal bulletin i presume) was a classic example of the sort of exclusions that come with the small-private-liberal-arts-college-ification of the soppy end of anarchism at all. She didn't feel alienated by the language at all, and didn't feel that there was a contradiction in the demand that other people _must_ take up the use of these technical terms as they were coined by 'those at the forefront of struggle' and so best expressed her own experiences. She particularly didn't feel that the point made about looking at things in this sort of way makes for great propaganda due to its inherent inclusivity to be at all laughable.
> 
> She also wanted me to add in a tokenistic way the the caveat that her thoughts on this documents responses to the issues are exactly that, thoughts on these _responses_, not on the issues of sexism, racism etc Just to cover her back like.


 
My mum says it's shit because it doesn't mention Jesus even once 

This has turned into a really interesting thread IMO, thanks especially to cesare, sihhi and nigelirritible. Not really sure where I stand on this - seems to me like there's some potentially useful stuff in there but if it's not integrated into a serious analysis of wider social relations it has the potential to either descend into identity politics or be used by identity politikers as cover for their shit politics.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

There's also a general problem with privilege theory in that, it allows, regardless of however strong the AF thinks it is, to let liberals carry on doing the running. For a while, modern capitalism has been about 'including' the 'excluded' "_privileging_" the "_non-privileged_": Magic Johnson in the black American ghettos, positive discrimination to produce (ideologically pure and 'British' but) non-white army officers, 50-50 firm management boards in Norway's capitalist firms by law, F.A. clubs actively scouting in the West African youth football leagues, 'scholarships' and 'assisted places' for the unprivileged poor, 'the priority for new development will be our poor crumbling inner city estates', microcredit for womens' domestic textile activity, Rwanda's 33% female parliamentarian quota, the ethnic minority business grants, reservations for OBCs in India, fair-trade chocolate with contracts to Luo-owned farms in Kenya, payments to peasant family heads for every female child that attends schools, South Africa's broad-based black economic empowerment, JPA scholarships in Malaysia, the 30% bumiputera equity rule, Lord Davies report on women on boards (up from 9% to 12% - in spite of the recession). In general it's how capitalism has been operating in the West since the 1990s, after a version of it became popular on the left in the West in the 1980s - municipal socialism in Bologna and the GLA's funding grants)
It also lets the political right in. Underprivileged Nigerian in London=Well-educated, English speaking Hausa in Nigeria. That's the same person, one 5 hour plane trip away. 'If they don't like it here, they are welcome to go back home'. Underprivileged here=Privileged there. 'How can degree-educated Nigerians complain about how they are only security guards or porters in this country, if they were back home with good English, a couple of years working in London would be like lords in their country... they want money for their relatives too... they don't spend their money here' etc etc.


> Men, white people, straight people, cisgendered people etc., can't give up their privilege - no matter how much they may want to. It is forced on them by a system they cannot opt out of, or choose to stop benefiting from.


 



> Isn’t it enough to talk about racism, sexism, homophobia etc. without having to call white, male and straight people something that offends them? If it’s just the terminology you object to, be aware that radical black activists, feminists, queer activists and disabled activists widely use the term privilege. Oppressed groups need to lead the struggles to end their oppressions, and that means these oppressed groups get to define the struggle and the terms we use to talk about it. It is, on one level, simply not up to class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males to tell people of colour and women what words are useful in the struggles against white supremacy and patriarchy. If you dislike the term but agree with the concept, then it would show practical solidarity to leave your personal discomfort out of the argument, accept that the terminology has been chosen, and start using the same term as _*those at the forefront of these struggles*_.


 


So who is at the forefront of these struggles? Who are all these "_radical_ black activists, feminists, queer activists and disabled activists" eager to have the concept be popularised? I see a lot of liberal 'poser' 'activists' using the term.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> How do anarchists balance the right of women to autonomously self-organise with decrying identity politics?


 
I'm not an anarchist, but I suspect it's about whether the autonomous self-organisation is 'women', pleading for identification and incorporation with capitalist women; or if it is working-class women -  people who have zero interest in capitalist women (or women who chase after capitalists to marry them) but want to promote anti-capitalism by and for women.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 25, 2012)

Thanks for your posts sihhi.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi said:


> So who is at the forefront of these struggles? Who are all these "_radical_ black activists, feminists, queer activists and disabled activists" eager to have the concept be popularised? I see a lot of liberal 'poser' 'activists' using the term.


 
Yes, the terminology and the theoretical framework came from guilty white semi-Maoist anti-racists in the US and then was developed in the American feminist academy. It is now beginning to colonise elements of the British left through the influence of American radical liberals on the internet. The notion that "the terminology has been chosen" and is already the preference of those "at the forefront of the struggles" is simply 100% false, particularly in a European context.

Indeed it represents an attempt to guilt trip people into accepting liberal theories, on the basis that to do otherwise is to scorn the right of "those in the forefront of the struggles", and those at various oppression "intersections" to choose their own language. Get used to this sort of thing, by the way. If this stuff catches on, you are going to be hearing a lot more of it.




			
				AFED paper said:
			
		

> It is, on one level, simply not up to class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males to tell people of colour and women what words are useful in the struggles against white supremacy and patriarchy.


 
Leaving aside my irritation at the importation of the Americanism "people of colour", and the dishonesty of ascribing this language to "people of colour" and "women" as undifferentiated groups, I'm left wondering whether these people think that Noel Ignatin and Ted Allen were black women? Rather than white male activists in and leaders of "class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males"?

By the way, is the document officially from the AFed Women's Caucus itself? Or from some members of it? The part at the top is a little ambiguous, but seems to say it's a women's group document.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I'm not an anarchist, but I suspect it's about whether the autonomous self-organisation is 'women', pleading for identification and incorporation with capitalist women; or if it is working-class women - people who have zero interest in capitalist women (or women who chase after capitalists to marry them) but want to promote anti-capitalism by and for women.


I understand that anti-capitalist class conscious segregation is preferable to capitalist vertical segregation ... I just wondered what the rationale is for having any form of separatist politics at all (but I realise that an anarchist is the best person to answer, any insights welcomed though).


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

> Indeed it represents an attempt to guilt trip people into accepting liberal theories, on the basis that to do otherwise is to scorn the right of "those in the forefront of the struggles", and those at various oppression "intersections" to choose their own language.


 

In fairness to the document it states it is for social revolution and dispossesion of capitalists as a class for the benefit of everyone.



> Leaving aside my irritation at the importation of the Americanism "people of colour", and the dishonesty of ascribing this language to "people of colour" and "women" as undifferentiated groups, I'm left wondering whether these people think that Noel Ignatin and Ted Allen were black women? Rather than white male activists in and leaders of "class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males"?


 
"People of colour" (depending on how it's used) sometimes assumes only skin-tone determines national chauvinism, whilst even in America with its strong colour line, it can surface like with references to guido slobs (unemployed Italo-Americans) and trailer X (white and poor). It's also confusing because many Mexican-American latino/as , particularly of criollo and mestizo heritage, are visibly white (and some even have anglo names), and many do not see themselves as "of colour", linking that with indigenous-heritage Mexicans.
It has about less relevance to somewhere like Canada with the Quebecois French, and zero relevance in Russia, but it wasn't designed for export, even liberal feminist sociology professors would accept that, wouldn't they?



> By the way, is the document officially from the AFed Women's Caucus itself? Or from some members of it? The part at the top is a little ambiguous, but seems to say it's a women's group document.


 
I've no idea.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi said:


> In fairness to the document it states it is for social revolution and dispossesion of capitalists as a class for the benefit of everyone.


 
Yes, it's exactly as confused as you'd expect a document trying to fuse this sort of thing with class struggle anarchism to be.

But to be more clear, I was referring specifically to the argument that it's not up to "class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males to tell people of colour and women what words are useful in the struggles against white supremacy and patriarchy." Which contains quite a number of rhetorical sleights of hand in one sentence. Women and black people (sorry, I just can't keep using that fucking Americanism) are treated as undifferentiated blocs. The ideas of "privilege theory" are then ascribed to those blocs. Class struggle groups are assigned white maleness. Disagreement with the language of (and therefore the theoretical framework of) "privilege theory" is cast as arrogant, racist and sexist.

That's what I was describing when I said "it represents an attempt to guilt trip people into accepting liberal theories, on the basis that to do otherwise is to scorn the right of "those in the forefront of the struggles", and those at various oppression "intersections" to choose their own language."


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> But to be more clear, I was referring specifically to the argument that it's not up to "class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males to tell people of colour and women what words are useful in the struggles against white supremacy and patriarchy." Which contains quite a number of rhetorical sleights of hand in one sentence. Women and black people (sorry, I just can't keep using that fucking Americanism) are treated as undifferentiated blocs. The ideas of "privilege theory" are then ascribed to those blocs. Class struggle groups are assigned white maleness. Disagreement with the language of (and therefore the theoretical framework of) "privilege theory" is cast as arrogant, racist and sexist.


 
You get all that? I don't think they're going to say the rest of AF is  'arrogant, racist and sexist' if AF decides privilege theory is not for them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi said:


> You get all that? I don't think they're going to say the rest of AF is 'arrogant, racist and sexist' if AF decides privilege theory is not for them.


 
I don't pretend to know what they really think. But the rhetorical devices used in that passage amount to a clear implication that it is arrogant, racist and sexist for class struggle groups to oppose privilege theory. Read it. What other meaning could that passage have? Why include it otherwise?

Let's be clear here, even amongst US radical liberals where the use of this sort of rhetoric to undermine disagreement is extremely common, I don't think that the people using that technique necessarily think that the people they are baiting are actually racists or sexists. Sometimes it's a cynical ploy. Sometimes it hasn't been thought through.


----------



## emma goldman (Oct 25, 2012)

Nice one said:


> not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene _is_ populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.
> 
> 1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).
> 
> ...


 
The London anarchist scene is populated by many "white, posh shouty boys", however it is not just poshboy anarchists who are sexist and demean womens opinions, and I would say that actually there are plenty of sexist shouty working-class men populating the London anarchist scene.
Now you reference class quite a bit in your post, you mention the secretary who is "white middle aged middle class", and also the protaganist in the second meeting who is "faux-lumpen", and then describe your self as "white working class male anarchist". However you fail to mention the class of the "young indian female anarchist".
I was at the meeting you're describing. Now I have no idea the class of the woman referenced, however I suspect that because you haven't mentioned it that perhaps she may be middle-class and seeing as we're talking about intersectionality and privilege, perhaps that may be significant.
Also as far as I recollect the original proposal which you describe as being written by the Indian female anarchist was actually written by a group of people from a north london anarchist collective, or at least it was presented to the meeting as such.
Now there is no way I am going to deny that sexism may have been behind her/your proposal being dropped, however I think that it is a little bit disengenous to imply that it was the main reason. I had no idea that the woman in question had written the proposal, and so also that may have been the case for many of the other people at the meeting.

I also remember that at that meeting youre talking about a working-class white woman asked that the following statement be included in the aims of the groups "The group will also actively confront, challenge and organise against racism, sexism, homophobia etc and its impact on working-class peoples lives" or something like that. At the second meeting which afaik was a discussion meeting to further thrash out the aims and principles of the group, that proposal was dropped from the aims and principles because "anarchists already have that covered and it goes without saying". However other pretty generic and obvious statements about smashing capitalism and the state were included.
Now if the "faux-lumpen" anarchist and his mates had walked out of the meeting, then presumably the proposal was dropped by you and whoever was left in the meeting. So I would like to ask you why a clear statement of feminist intent was dropped from the groups aims and principles, especially when you and the young Indian female anarchist are so concerned by the oppression of women.
Was it anything to do with the class of the feminist who proposed it, or because feminism and anarchafeminists are seen to be a little bit embarassing to the movement/scene?

You say that you have been hanging off the scene for years but have never witnessed that level of sexism before, well anarchist women have been complaining about this sort of behaviour for years/decades/centuries and sexist behaviour behaviour whereby women are not listened to, not taken seriously, are assaulted, undermined and excluded, is endemic and someone who is anarchist and been around for years should acknowledge that, and take an active stance against it, not just come on an internet forum to snipe, which makes me doubt your motives.

In terms of this thread, manarchism and privilege, personally I don't like the terms, but I do understand what it's trying to express, that is the pervasiveness of sexism/racism/homophobia in society, the working class and the so called radical left.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi said:


> You get all that? I don't think they're going to say the rest of AF is 'arrogant, racist and sexist' if AF decides privilege theory is not for them.


I agree. Sorry Nigel, I think that's too much of a leap.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> I agree. Sorry Nigel, I think that's too much of a leap.


 
What else is that passage implying, other than that opposition to the language of privilege theory and therefore the theoretical framework it presents is in some important sense racist, sexist and arrogant? Why else include that argument?

Read the passage again. There's no other content to it. "Privilege theory" is described as something stemming from and widely adopted by oppressed groups and in particular political radicals amongst those groups. Those oppressed groups (or at least their political radicals) are treated as undifferentiated blocs. Class struggle groups, by contrast, are assigned whiteness and maleness. The right of people in class struggle groups to question privilege theory in good faith is thereby undermined. If it's "not for" you to disagree with (some? any?) black people or (some? any?) women about the language used to describe their oppression and therefore the theory underlying that language, what does it imply if you persist in doing just that?


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What else is that passage implying, other than that opposition to the language of privilege theory and therefore the theoretical framework it presents is in some important sense racist, sexist and arrogant? Why else include that argument?
> 
> Read the passage again. There's no other content to it.


OK, I've found the link again and opened it up. Which part of it are you referring to in particular?

Edit: Oh hang on, you've added some stuff. I've printed it off and will read it again.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

document said:
			
		

> Isn’t it enough to talk about racism, sexism, homophobia etc. without having to call white, male and straight people something that offends them? If it’s just the terminology you object to, be aware that radical black activists, feminists, queer activists and disabled activists widely use the term privilege. Oppressed groups need to lead the struggles to end their oppressions, and that means these oppressed groups get to define the struggle and the terms we use to talk about it. It is, on one level, simply not up to class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males to tell people of colour and women what words are useful in the struggles against white supremacy and patriarchy. If you dislike the term but agree with the concept, then it would show practical solidarity to leave your personal discomfort out of the argument, accept that the terminology has been chosen, and start using the same term as _*those at the forefront of these struggles*_.


 
This is the key passage. Its premises are false, its method is guilt tripping, its implications are that disagreement with the language and framework of privilege theory are in some important but unspoken sense racist, sexist and arrogant.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Edit: Oh hang on, you've added some stuff. I've printed it off and will read it again.


 
Yeah, sorry, I was trying to make my point clearer. To add something further, I very much doubt if it's the conscious intention of the people writing the document to cast their opponents (if any) within the Anarchist Federation as a bunch of arrogant racists and sexists. I suspect it's more likely that in this passage they've simply borrowed in an unreflective way a very common set of rhetorical devices used within US radical liberalism which has that implication. And which is often used with significant and destructive effect in those circles.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 25, 2012)

Really interesting thread this. I think one of the problems that perennially pops up in Anarchist groupings (based partly on my own narrow experiences) is that of informal authority and informal heirachy, how in groups with no formal leadership there can emerge informal leadership structures and cliques that can be quite arbritrary and dangerous, as there is no means by which to check them because they formally don't exist. I don't think Anarchists are unique in this, but it's especially problematic for them coz of the egalitarian nature of Anarchist politics.

And if anything it's the reason why I'm scepitcal about Anarchist politics, because if you can't sort this out within their own organisations than how can you expect society itself to be run on these lines? Is it not better sometimes to have a formal authority that can be ignored, laws that are enforced selectively, rather than a formal type of absolute freedom that in practice gives way to much more direct forms of domination? I don't know the answer, and i'm probably not expressing myself very effectively, but that's really why I lost a lot of sympathy with Anarchism after my late teens.

And what worries me a lot of about this intersectionality stuff is how it will get applied within these sorts of informal heirchies to exclude opposition and close down democratic debate. Rather than it being something that can used to stop the "Very-Boring-Middle-Aged White-Man-Droning-On-And-On-Talking-Over-Everyone-At-Meetings" I suspect it'll do nothing of the sort. I suspect these very boring middle aged people will revel in the fact they've got a new type of dense political jargon they can use to undermine and bully people who haven't got degree in critical theory. In total abstraction there's a lot of merit to these idea's, but in practice I think it'll be totally appropriated by self-important arseholes can use to carry out their grudges and vendettas within their own tiny organisations.

Which seems to be how it works in the USA, and I'd be gutted if it gained prominence over here.

Then of course there's the wider _retreat from class_ context to all of this, but I'll save my thoughts on that for another time.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is the key passage. Its premises are false, its method is guilt tripping, its implications are that disagreement with the language and framework of privilege theory are in some important but unspoken sense racist, sexist and arrogant.


I've read it again. The way that I perceive what's written is something similar to how language has changed over the past 30 odd years. For example, 30 years ago it was normal to refer to black people as coloured. Now, it's not. Some people still persist in using "coloured" instead of "black". There's a whiff of casual racism and anachronism about that old usage, but not enough for the average person to accuse them of being racist because of using outdated terminology. That's my interpretation of what's being said in that passage. I'm not sure I agree, because (a) I'm not convinced that all of these alleged radical <whatever> activists are actually using the terminology as default; and (b) even if they are, it's by no means spread to normal language outside radical circles. It might do, in time. But until then I'm not going to lend it credence by making a huge fuss about failing to use the language being by default racist, sexist etc. It's too big a leap and not what was said.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> But until then I'm not going to lend it credence by making a huge fuss about failing to use the language being by default racist, sexist etc. It's too big a leap and not what was said.


 
It's not said explicitly. But what exactly does it imply about you and your point of view if it's "not for" you to disagree with these linguistic and theoretical points ascribed to black people and women (or black radicals and feminists, as so often there's a certain slippage between the two in the argument), and yet you insist on doing so anyway? At best that you are the kind of person who insists on calling people "coloured", to use your example, and at worst...

This is a form of rhetoric used by US radical liberals to delegitimise dissent. As I said above though, I suspect that this isn't a deliberate intention in the AFed context, so much as an ill-conceived borrowing of a common argument used in the American circles the writers are influenced by.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yeah, sorry, I was trying to make my point clearer. To add something further, I very much doubt if it's the conscious intention of the people writing the document to cast their opponents (if any) within the Anarchist Federation as a bunch of arrogant racists and sexists. I suspect it's more likely that in this passage they've simply borrowed in an unreflective way a very common set of rhetorical devices used within US radical liberalism which has that implication. And which is often used with significant and destructive effect in those circles.


Yes, I agree.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not said explicitly. But what exactly does it imply about you and your point of view if it's "not for" you to disagree with these linguistic and theoretical points ascribed to black people and women (or black radicals and feminists, as so often there's a certain slippage between the two in the argument), and yet you insist on doing so anyway? At best that you are the kind of person who insists on calling people "coloured", to use your example, and at worst...


Yeah, but that assumes I give a fuck about what they think.

Sorry, a bit terse


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yeah, but that assumes I give a fuck about what they think.


 
I think that the impact of this sort of rhetoric in US radical circles has been important enough that you'd end up giving a fuck quite quickly if it becomes established in these parts. It's less about what the person using the argument thinks and more the effect that such arguments have on debate in a wider milieu.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think that the impact of this sort of rhetoric in US radical circles has been important enough that you'd end up giving a fuck quite quickly if it becomes established in these parts. It's less about what the person using the argument thinks and more the effect that such arguments have on debate in a wider milieu.


So what are you suggesting? Oppose it? Undermine it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> So what are you suggesting? Oppose it? Undermine it?


 
I'm in favour of taking a pretty hard line on it while it's still weak. I do _not_ mean by that being a rude dick to people who've just encountered this stuff on the internet and are thinking about radical politics for the first time. But I do mean opposing it in a thoughtful way within left wing organisations and milieus here and not making political concessions to it.

An important part of that is not to confuse the importance of the issues "privilege theory" and associated arguments touch upon and describe with the validity of that particular theoretical framework. If it becomes an argument between advocates of "privilege theory" and people who either don't care about racism/sexism/etc or who give the impression that they have nothing of interest to say about those issues, "privilege theory" will make very big inroads to ultimately destructive effect.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2012)

What would 'taking a hard line on it' look like in practice?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> What would 'taking a hard line on it' look like in practice?


 
Arguing against it. Not making political concessions to it. Not glossing over the problems inherent to it because at least it gets people talking about important issues (and lets be clear, sometimes it does do that). Not trying to reconcile it with more radical politics.

And if that doesn't work an escalating campaign of violence, starting with baseball bats and eventually culminating in the dropping of the Workers Bomb on Oberlin College.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm in favour of taking a pretty hard line on it while it's still weak.


 
On "still weak": it's fairly strong in attitude in real life. Elect someone from your team and they'll look after you - it's there in lots of minority groups. 
It was there in the Respect saga (back when the SWP was full tilt behind it, seems like a century ago) in Galloway's assertion in 2005 that Tower Hamlets needed a Bangladeshi MP, so he would only stay for one term. 
It was there in Labour selecting David Lammy over Bernie Grant's wife in 2000. (Labour felt a non-black candidate would be outdone by a black opponent 
It was certainly stronger in "the left" in the 1980s when separate lesbian, separate gay, separate minority organisations were funded by the GLC on the basis that these "liaison bodies" would ensure that the 'privilege' within GLC's activities would be 'checked'. Different language was used at the time but similar manifestation.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2012)

I don't know if this has been gone over (not keeping up properly to be honest) but something that I think is being missed is that having something of an identity politics take on things doesn't mean turning up, rejecting all existing values and ways of being, and rewriting things exactly how you want them from scratch.  A value can still be put on experience.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Sihhi/Nigel - this goes back to what I was saying about privilege theory potentially being used as a vehicle (an "acceptable" face) for identity politics. To that extent, I think privilege theory in and of itself is a bit of a red herring. For example, I've seen far more unpleasant stuff written around radfem politics than anything AFED's women's caucus has floated.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi, can I just mention that in my own experience I've seen how some very unprincipled I knew in real life have done similiar things to those mentioned above especially within LGBT Labour. There's a lot of craven right-wing blairite types quite happy to appropriate this rhetoric to pursue a right-wing political project in that mileu.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

sihhi said:


> On "still weak": it's fairly strong in attitude in real life.


 
I'm talking about "privilege theory" in particular here, rather than identity politics in general. Although I do think that widespread adoption of the language and assumptions of "privilege" will give a big spur to identity politics in a broader sense, at least relative to other left wing ideas and it will give advocates of identity politics a very useful set of weapons to beat their opponents with.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> For example, I've seen far more unpleasant stuff written around radfem politics than anything AFED's women's caucus has floated.


 
Sure, although it has to be said that AFED thing is very much the acceptable face of this stuff. It's a misguided attempt by class struggle activists to absorb an irreconcilable set of theories into their own world view and so it involves a winnowing out of some of the more outre stuff. The arguments can get a bit more hair raising where "privilege" is entrenched and even dominant in vaguely radical circles.

I think you and Sihhi are right to place "privilege" in a wider identity politics context, but it's important to emphasise that in the US, it has heralded a rebirth of identity politics in their most liberal form and immeasurably strengthened those politics within the US left. Everyone else now has to engage on their terms in a huge range of contexts.

(Of course, various forms of identity politics have generally been stronger in the US).


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> sihhi, can I just mention that in my own experience I've seen how some very unprincipled I knew in real life have done similiar things to those mentioned above especially within LGBT Labour. There's a lot of craven right-wing blairite types quite happy to appropriate this rhetoric to pursue a right-wing political project in that mileu.


 
I don't know the details but an old/retired Labour member explained that Lammy's team urged Bernie Grant's wife Sharon (white and long-time Labour member activist) not to stand because when other parties selected black candidates they would lose their vote strength, and this might affect councillors. 
It had a half-grain of truth but that was all that Labour were/as of today still are going to win in Tottenham, in spite of any low turnouts.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> relative to other left wing ideas


 
What left wing ideas would identity politics be in competition with/ opposition to?


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2012)

I don't know.  Maybe it's just better not to make a fuss about things. 

Someone is wrong on the internet


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> What left wing ideas would identity politics be in competition with/ opposition to?


 
I suspect the answer would be: that class isn't the only oppression that matters.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 25, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I suspect the answer would be: that class isn't the only oppression that matters.


 
Do you mean, that class _is_ the only oppression that matters?

Actually I do get that.  There was some discussion earlier on the thread about why class is different to other kinds of oppression.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think you and Sihhi are right to place "privilege" in a wider identity politics context, but it's important to emphasise that in the US, it has heralded a rebirth of identity politics in their most liberal form and immeasurably strengthened those politics within the US left. Everyone else now has to engage on their terms in a huge range of contexts.


 OK but if the privilege people are using the internet, then so can we here are some pissed off people, perhaps the people commenting are all idiots I don't know but there _*is*_ a sense of anger at people using 'privilege' for their own ends




> The “privilege” discourse has a few good insights, but it has developed into an ideology and political movement which are objectively counterrevolutionary. I would actually argue that Privilege Theory itself, as practiced by many white activists, is often racist because it elevates the politics and action of *certain* (liberal, usually middle-class, reformist) activists as the only legitimate expression of resistance by POC, while ignoring not only the history of revolutionary movements led and built by POC, but also the more revolutionary POC organizations and initiatives of today. And fuck Tim Wise and every other “professional” antiracist, seriously. What greater privilege could there be than to get yourself a full-time job in the movement while the rest of us schmucks actually work for a living in shitty conditions. Privilege theory has turned into yet another way for white activists to exempt themselves from the class struggle and still feel good about themselves.


 



> Over the last year we saw an amazing amount of revolutionary activity around the world, a real awakening where a lot of people who had been complacent and content to “go along to get along” finally came around to seeing a lot of things our way. Did we take advantage of this? Did we fuck. Instead of figuring out ways we could really support those people and offer our help, we mostly sat around playing these privilege games with ourselves, alienating the exact people who would have been most receptive to what we had to say. Put yourself in the place of one of those newly-minted activists, of any race, gender, sexual orientation or ability, and consider whether you’d rush to be part of a movement where everyone was constantly policing your speech and denouncing you for a slip of the tongue or a behavior that you weren’t even aware of. Sound like something you’d want to be a part of?


 



> “creating a politics of guilt by birth” is a great phrase and a good statement of how a lot of this stuff has felt to me when I’ve encountered it. I’ve also run into people making a lot of assumptions based on what people look like. In my experience with regard to privilege-talk among white radicals I feel like it often amounts to white people talking with white people about their whiteness. That has a place I guess but it’s pretty limited, and I feel like it often involves people saying “we” in ways that make me deeply uncomfortable. I’m from an inter-racial family and have had a lot of experiences that are really emotionally charged regarding race, and there’s some longstanding unresolved issues in my family in general. The privilege stuff I’ve run into has felt really inadequate to my and my family’s experiences. The emotional nature of all that has made me mostly just clam up, because I haven’t wanted to get into any of that personal stuff with people within the vocabulary and concepts that the privilege conversations felt like they were operating with. And to be frank at least some of the time the privilege thing has felt partly like a way for activists to play one-upsmanship games. Not that it’s always and only that, I think a lot of people are sincere in reaching for those ideas, but a lot of the uses of that stuff have been counterproductive, as your article gets into.


 


> Also, I’d add that I agree with Nate’s “often amounts to white people talking with white people about their whiteness” — and that if there are concerns about organizing people of color, there are few things more alienating.


 




> One thing I will say about Occupy Wall Street is that it switched the script: instead of arguing over who has the “right to represent” — the movement demanded participation. Don’t say someone else is saying it wrong, speak motherfucker! Act. Organize. Fight. Watching the various leftists and movement pros try to make themselves necessary, some dragged out this same series of “critiques” in order to shut the movement down.
> 
> The decolonize/occupy debate was a perfect example. How dare people challenge the ruling class! Change your vocabulary or you are a white supremacist (whether you are white or not). Etc. Some even claimed the very use of the term “occupy” was racist, ignoring the AIM occupation of Alcatraz (and Pine Ridge) or the Young Lords occupation of a Harlem hospital as key events in the development of revolutionary movements among people of color in the US.


 



> When a radical movement of participation and solidarity challenges the ruling class frontally — it is reduced (by tired activists trying to justify their own existence) into an exercise in “white supremacy” for the simple fact that many of the people involved are white. GET REAL.
> 
> This country has 200 million some-odd white people. That millions have responded to Occupy with enthusiasm broke the racist tide of the Tea Party. You know, the actual white supremacists…
> 
> ...


 





> Anyways, can we try turning the lens toward gaps within non-groups? For those of us who want to break up white supremacy as a component of the fight for dictatorship of the proletariat as a whole, we should concern ourselves with building up solidarity amongst non-whites because that where the power lies. Gaps between blacks and latinos for example, contribute to the weakness of of-color-anti-racism. Its telling that whites are possibly the most represented racial group at these hoodie/skittle actions other than blacks. You don’t see hundreds of Asian youth out there for example. We are focusing too much on what whites should and should not do, and too little on what latinos, blacks and other non-whites should do. I think this is one of the main efforts that “Notes on Privilege Theory” makes. Unfortunately, responses reproduce the problem that Will is calling out…
> 
> On breaking up white solidarity: it was suggested that efforts at turning this Trayvon marches toward white working class areas. This is a good idea. However, if the tone of the march assumes white racism and thus support by whites for the murder of this innocent black youth, it would run the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyway, in any major city, there are hundreds of thousands of working class whites, but they are generally politically liberal and don’t tend to have their own exclusively white neighborhoods. In Oakland for example, white neighborhoods = rich neighborhoods, although many working class whites live dispersed amongst black and browns. Those whites would 100% convinced already of the racial injustice the murder of Trayvon represents, so its not much of a battle there. Im sure in the suburban and rural areas the whites are less sympathetic, but the problem of exporting a protest from its urban base to outlying areas is logistically a barrier.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> What left wing ideas would identity politics be in competition with/ opposition to?


This is a really good question, and I hope you get a lot of replies to it which will probably illustrate my in a nutshell "a lot, but from different perspectives".

My own take on it is this:

Left politics are socialist. The underlying principle is working towards a fairer society. When you look at this closely, you see that a fairer society means that the people who have too much should give it to the people who have too little. That's in economic terms, but it also applies to fairness in how people live their lives i.e. not to be oppressed by the people who have the power. This means that power should be redistributed as well.

When you look at who is advantaged by wealth and power, it's defined by our class system. It's concentrated in the ruling class (aristocracy, upper class, corporate heads of business, magnates etc) and filters down through the professional/middle class until it gets to the working class and then the impoverished. There's a whole mass of ways that wealth and power are distributed and exercised within all that, but that's the general idea.

Where do the ruling and middle classes get their wealth and power from? Some of it's inherited and passed down through the generations "old money". Most of it is gained from elsewhere in society. Our entire capitalist system is set up to extract as much wealth as possible from the people that produce things of worth that make a profit, and for that profit to be redirected to the already wealthy and powerful. So there's loads of us working very hard to keep a roof over our heads, and provide for our families in the full knowledge that all that effort earns the least wages they can get away with but that produces a huge amount of profit for the people in charge. This affects everyone whether able/willing to work or not. So not very fair. People on the left want to change that and so are anti-capitalist. I tend to think of anti-capitalism as a force being exerted upwards against the capital force being exerted downwards.

But power is distributed in another way too, because the capitalist system is also patriarchal. Our society is structured in such a way that it favours male dominance. So people on the left challenge that as well, because the converse of dominance is oppression which does not make for a fair society. Other ways that patriarchal power is used to dominate/oppress is by way of dominating anything "other" e.g. race, colour, culture, disability, orientation, gender, age etc (in no particular order). People on the left want to change that and so are anti-patriarchy. I tend to think of anti-patriarchy as a force being exerted around and up against the patriarchal force being exerted around and down.

Where it gets tricky is where anti-patriarchy is concentrated on to the exclusion of anti-capitalism, and this is known as identity politics. Not all identity politics are left, simply because that really wouldn't suit some of the rich and powerful identities whose economic and power interests it wouldn't serve. Identity politics don't make for a fairer society because they only aim for anti-patriarchal fairness which only looks at part of the picture. They are also divisive and result in segregation, with sharp lines being drawn between "us" and "them".

A bit simplistic, just a bit of an overview. There's loads of different flavours of "left" too.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> How do anarchists balance the right of women to autonomously self-organise with decrying identity politics?


 
I'm not an anarchist and not all of them would agree with the following; however my understanding is (and I agree with it) that any section of working class people that feel their situation within class society requires they organise with people who identify as being in the same situation in order to push their radically progressive emancipatory ideas within the wider working class movement *and beyond*.

Now in relation to this some tiresome people would say "ah but what about straight white males?"

Well the fact that no straight white males have ever afaik felt the need to self organise as straight whitle males to push their radically progressive and emancipatory ideas within the wider working class movement and beyond proves that it is not an issue.

it's not about seperatism or identity politics it's about real working class self organisation. Including working class women's self organisation etc


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2012)

I also think it's interesting that there seems to be cross class opposition to self organisation from straight white males... I might be wrong but they seem to be the source of the overwhelming majority of denial of the need for it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I also think it's interesting that there seems to be cross class opposition to self organisation from straight white males... I might be wrong but they seem to be the source of the overwhelming majority of denial of the need for it.


 
Do you mean self organisation from straight white males, or self organisation by self identified groups from straight white males? (I think you mean the latter but just checking).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Do you mean self organisation from straight white males, or self organisation by self identified groups from straight white males? (I think you mean the latter but just checking).


 
yes the latter


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

The discussion on this over on libcom is generally pretty good too, although it seems to me to provide evidence that this stuff has seeped quite a bit further into the British anarchist "scene" than I'd have thought. Not all of the people arguing for privilege stuff are Yanks, for instance.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The discussion on this over on libcom is generally pretty good too, although it seems to me to provide evidence that this stuff has seeped quite a bit further into the British anarchist "scene" than I'd have thought. Not all of the people arguing for privilege stuff are Yanks, for instance.


Which discussion did you read? There's a couple.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

The one called "Afed and Privilege Theory as a Starting Point" that's currently ongoing. There are some interesting posts in it, but the sociological aspect (ie the number of apparently British Anarchos showing softness on this stuff) is at least as interesting in itself.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The one called "Afed and Privilege Theory as a Starting Point" that's currently ongoing. There are some interesting posts in it, but the sociological aspect (ie the number of apparently British Anarchos showing softness on this stuff) is at least as interesting in itself.


I've read the one with the same title as this. And another one on privilege theory, although I can't remember the title, I'll see if I still have the tab open ...

Edit:here it is http://libcom.org/library/privilege-politics-reformism

I've just realised that it starts with the same Black Orchid piece that Sihhi linked to earlier in the thread.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

It occurs to me that Anarchists can serve much the same canary in a cage purpose that the old IMG used to. They are particularly attuned to the first vapors of poisonous gas when it comes to fashionable lefty nonsense.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It occurs to me that Anarchists can serve much the same canary in a cage purpose that the old IMG used to. They are particularly attuned to the first vapors of poisonous gas when it comes to fashionable lefty nonsense.


I'd say that there's more evidence of it in student land judging from what das uberdog's been posting.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

It's not anarchism per se but the amorphous activist scene in which many anarchists are immersed


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's not anarchism per se but the amorphous activist scene in which many anarchists are immersed


Aye. I'm thinking Occupy rather then <example specific anarcho org> sort of thing, if that's what you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2012)

Bit of fucking discipline and responsibility is what's needed for these people.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Aye. I'm thinking Occupy rather then <example specific anarcho org> sort of thing, if that's what you mean?


 
yes


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bit of fucking discipline and responsibility is what's needed for these people.


 
Yep the lick of a firm Taafe


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

Very good. Although also sort of gross.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

Every time I read this thread I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's short story, Harrison Bergeron.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Every time I read this thread I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's short story, Harrison Bergeron.


Who do you think is arguing for equality on the thread?


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Who do you think is arguing for equality on the thread?


 
I was careful to say this thread _reminds_ of the story, because I don't think anyone is arguing for that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Every time I read this thread I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's short story, Harrison Bergeron.


 
To be fair I've no idea why


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To be fair I've no idea why


 
It's a society where everyone is forced to 'check their privileges'.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> It's a society where everyone is forced to 'check their privileges'.


I haven't finished reading it yet, but the first few paragraphs are about people being forced to be equal to a pre-determined "norm" and handicapped accordingly.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> I haven't finished reading it yet, but the first few paragraphs are about people being forced to be equal to a pre-determined "norm" and handicapped accordingly.


 
Yeah, it's not complete like for like, and focuses on physical and mental privileges rather than social. But the general idea is similar enough for me to have made a link.

Short story: if you're too strong you'll be weighed down, if you're too intelligent you'll have your thought processed interrupted. This is because you're in a privileged position compared to others.

Privilege theory: if you're a man, your views may hold less weight than a woman, if you're heterosexual then your views may hold less weight than a homosexual. This is because in our society that gender and sexual orientation are in a privileged position.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Yeah, it's not complete like for like, and focuses on physical and mental privileges rather than social. But the general idea is similar enough for me to have made a link.
> 
> Short story: if you're too strong you'll be weighed down, if you're too intelligent you'll have your thought processed interrupted. This is because you're in a privileged position compared to others.
> 
> Privilege theory: if you're a man, your views may hold less weight than a woman, if you're heterosexual then your views may hold less weight than a homosexual. This is because in our society that gender and sexual orientation are in a privileged position.


I don't think that's what privilege theory is propounding. It *may* be a way in which it could be distorted though, granted.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Yeah, it's not complete like for like, and focuses on physical and mental privileges rather than social. But the general idea is similar enough for me to have made a link.
> 
> Short story: if you're too strong you'll be weighed down, if you're too intelligent you'll have your thought processed interrupted. This is because you're in a privileged position compared to others.
> 
> Privilege theory: if you're a man, your views may hold less weight than a woman, if you're heterosexual then your views may hold less weight than a homosexual. This is because in our society that gender and sexual orientation are in a privileged position.


 
That betrays your total lack of understanding of privilege theory.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That betrays your total lack of understanding of privilege theory.


 
Good to see you've pointed out where I've gone wrong then to enlighten me.  Oh, wait...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Good to see you've pointed out where I've gone wrong then to enlighten me. Oh, wait...


 
It's tough to know where you to start when you're chatting such shit at this time on a Saturday afternoon.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

But hey I''ll boil down what I understand (could be completely wrong here I'm not an academic) to be the essential message behind it.

Some elements of the working class are more oppressed than others both by society as a whole and by their own class, and those parts of our class that aren't as oppressed and indeed sometimes ignore or seem to ignore that oppression need to recognise that is does exist and that sometimes that by default gives them a more priviliged place in society.

In it's crudest terms on the whole life is easier for a straight white able bodied working class male than it is for a lesbian black disabled working class woman in Britain right now.

That doesn't mean that a straight white etc male's opinions on the whole are less valid than anyone elses but they damn sure need to recognise that other working class people have different experiences and those experiences will influence those people's world views just as the striahgt white working class male's views have been formed or at least influenced by experience.

ETA - this doesn't mean that straight white able bodied working class men may not have other oppresions themselves (mental health, abused as kids, or whatever) that also makes them less priviliged than others)

ETA2 - also of course this can be quite easily be taken to ludicrous spiralling opporession competition and that is when it becomes a problem


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Also, it might be less of a bone of contention if privilege theory was specifically about working class politics.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Also, it might be less of a bone of contention if privilege theory was specifically about working class politics.


 
Well yes another key problem with it- many of it's most vocal proponants do not subscribe to sound class politics - however this is also complicated by a lack of agreement among many over where class boundaries fall.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> But hey I''ll boil down what I understand (could be completely wrong here I'm not an academic) to be the essential message behind it.
> 
> Some elements of the working class are more oppressed than others both by society as a whole and by their own class, and those parts of our class that aren't as oppressed and indeed sometimes ignore or seem to ignore that oppression need to recognise that is does exist and that sometimes that by default gives them a more priviliged place in society.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you.

For privilege theory to be useful, it should give direction on how to use the understanding gained of others' experiences to work towards reducing the oppression.  What mechanisms does it use to do this?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> For privilege theory to be useful, it should give direction on how to use the understanding gained of others' experiences to work towards reducing the oppression. What mechanisms does it use to do this?


 
That's where it falls down. The type of privilege theory most are, I believe, talking about on here generally doesn't go much further than the "check your privilege" stuff, which on the face of it is ok-ish, in that it is undeniably a good thing to be more aware of multiple forms of oppression that you yourself might not experience, and the ways in which you might - quite unwittingly - be in some way contributing to that. But it's very much focused on it being an individual thing. "You" should check "your" privilege, and then call others out to check theirs. As I say, in and of itself, that's not a bad thing, but it tends to stop there, believing that if we all just checked our privilege the world would suddenly be lovely for everyone.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well yes another key problem with it- _many of it's most vocal proponants do not subscribe to sound class politics_ - however this is also complicated by a lack of agreement among many over where class boundaries fall.


​That's putting it mildly.​​"Black and brown folks who are not poor or working class — indeed those who are upper middle class and affluent — are still subjected to discrimination regularly, whether in the housing market, on the part of police, in schools, in the health care delivery system and on the job. *True enough, these better-off folks of color may be more economically stable that their poor white counterparts, but in the class system they compete for stuff against whites in the same economic strata: a competition in which they operate at a decided and unfair disadvantage.* So too, poor and working class whites, though they suffer the indignities of the class system, still have decided advantages over poor and working class people of color: their spells of unemployment are typically far shorter, their ability to find affordable and decent housing is far greater, and they are less likely to find themselves in resource-poor schools than even blacks and Latinos in middle class families."​​(Tim Wise: With Friends Like These, Who Needs Glenn Beck? Racism and White Privilege on the Liberal-Left)​​Many of the professor types don't want to understand class politics. They *don't want* to understand that academics or businessmen don't compete with teaching assistants or supermarket workers - that they are a class apart. To them it's "We're all not part of the elite".​​Sure class is fluid and it's maleable depending on how capitalism or technology or whatever transforms it, but to them it genuinely matters less than their calling for affirmative action programmes that will ensure equal representation by ratio of the various races on the boards of capitalist firms - without any mass activism expect from publishing lucrative books saying: 'We (whites) are all privileged').​​Sure I am in favour of equal representation on boards of firms but I'm not an idiot and I know that's an empty demand that will simply produce new hybrid forms of class oppression.​​They're idealists and they believe by their righteousness, company boards, the justice system, the immigration system, the professions and other power structures can be turned around collectively at a stroke to have enough black people in power so that the contours of society that give rise to white privilege will disappear.​​They are unable to understand the power of backlash rightist politics against strict quotas or affirmative selection programmes by background. They don't look at how 'anti-privilege' politics works in the real world - how often it either does nothing to or increases class inequality.​​The examples are there: India, Malaysia, South Africa since 1994 etc​​


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bit of fucking discipline and responsibility is what's needed for these people.


 
The boot, the whip and a vege-bacon sandwich.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 29, 2012)

sorry i couldn't help but post this - from the hub of privilege politics theory that is 'Jezebel'. the article itself is a fairly well trodden argument about the lack overweight black women in Hollywood, on the big screen - here's one of the top rated comments:





*vidya* and 19 moreReply​This post highlights an important issue. But it doesn't help the stigmatization of fat black women to keep referring to them as 'overweight'/'obese'. I was a little shocked to see these terms used in the article as if they were acceptable to the fat community. We've left behind 'Negro' and 'coloured'; let's dump these offensive, pseudo-medical descriptors as well, please, and use the language that progressive members of the marginalized community in question embrace.

the above pretty succinctly displays, for me, the degenerative spiral of petty censorship and division which 'privilege theory' brings with it, not to mention denial of medical terminology and grotesque conflations with apartheid era America.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 29, 2012)

There are so many communities out there.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 29, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> sorry i couldn't help but post this - from the hub of privilege politics theory that is 'Jezebel'. the article itself is a fairly well trodden argument about the lack overweight black women in Hollywood, on the big screen - here's one of the top rated comments:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I agree with your point DU, but it's not censorship for someone to say they dislike the constant prefix of overweight to a particular name. It's just a fairly random feeling, that was immediately shot down by the other commenters. Also a US celebrity discussion zone is not the anti-cuts movement here, so perhaps we should chill out about it. Given that no one on here seems to have gone to the AF meeting on privilege theory, perhaps people are ignoring it and challenging it head on only when it needs challenging.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Given that no one on here seems to have gone to the AF meeting on privilege theory, perhaps people are ignoring it and challenging it head on only when it needs challenging.


 
It will be a lot harder to "challenge head on" after it becomes the lingua franca of a swathe of activists rather then when it's first making inroads into the left on this side of the Atlantic.


----------



## Ole (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I agree with your point DU, but it's not censorship for someone to say they dislike the constant prefix of overweight to a particular name. It's just a fairly random feeling, that was immediately shot down by the other commenters. Also a US celebrity discussion zone is not the anti-cuts movement here, so perhaps we should chill out about it. Given that no one on here seems to have gone to the AF meeting on privilege theory, perhaps people are ignoring it and challenging it head on only when it needs challenging.


Eh? It's a direct call for censorship:


> We've left behind 'Negro' and 'coloured'; let's dump these offensive, pseudo-medical descriptors as well, please, and use the language that progressive members of the marginalized community in question embrace.


That the issue is about fat black women in Hollywood is surely itself significant, in observing the picture that "privilege theory" looks at.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 30, 2012)

How the hell do you describe fat black women without using the word fat, overweight, obese or resorting to patronising shite like generously built, traditionally shaped, curvaceous....rather a medical specificity than obscurity.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

"The fat community" 

LMFAO 

I hope their community centre has extra strong floor joists.

Surely to be part of an oppressed minority you must be a) oppressed and b) in the minority. And even if fat people were in an oppressed minority they could bring an end to this oppression by simply, you know, being less fat.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Surely to be part of an oppressed minority you must be a) oppressed and b) in the minority. And even if fat people were in an oppressed minority they could bring an end to this oppression by simply, you know, being less fat.


 Like people without jobs could simply, you know, get a job. "LMFAO."


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> Like people without jobs could simply, you know, get a job. "LMFAO."


 
Yes. That is the same thing. It's the government's fault people are fat.

There are a limited number of jobs which is less than the number of people who need them. So people don't have complete control over whether or not they have a job.

What there is not a limited supply of is excercise and non-consumption of pies.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes. That is the same thing. It's the government's fault people are fat.
> 
> There are a limited number of jobs which is less than the number of people who need them. So people don't have complete control over whether or not they have a job.
> 
> What there is not a limited supply of is excercise and non-consumption of pies.


Consumerism, in whatever form, is a consequence of Capitalism.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes. That is the same thing. It's the government's fault people are fat.
> 
> There are a limited number of jobs which is less than the number of people who need them. So people don't have complete control over whether or not they have a job.
> 
> What there is not a limited supply of is excercise and non-consumption of pies.


Why do you think that more and more people, especially working class people, all over the world have simply decided to eat more pies? Fat is a class issue. Pretending it's all down to individual morality or laziness is a very cosy, but reactionary, position. Yes, I mean you too Paul Marsh if you're reading!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Consumerism, in whatever form, is a consequence of Capitalism.


 
Well then the first step on the road to the destruction of capitalism must be our taking responsibility for and control over our own bodies. If we can't even do that then we're basically just brains floating in jars and we should all just give up now.


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well then the first step on the road to the destruction of capitalism must be our taking responsibility for and control over our own bodies. If we can't even do that then we're basically just brains floating in jars and we should all just give up now.


Unfortunately some people don't have the economic freedom to do what they like. Some people have to buy what's cheapest and most convenient, and what's cheapest and most convenient isn't necessarily conducive to the long term health of their bodies.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

Ole said:


> Eh? It's a direct call for censorship:
> 
> That the issue is about fat black women in Hollywood is surely itself significant, in observing the picture that "privilege theory" looks at.


 
That's not privilege theory speaking, it's one person's comment to an article about Hollywood, which suggests in a clumsy fashion, that every time 'overweight' is tagged onto an actor's name, it's like in the 1950s or 60s where it's 'coloured baseball player Jackie Robinson'. If you are an overweight female black actor, the label 'overweight' is used excessively, including where it has zero relevance to the discussion of her acting or film festival or whatever.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> Why do you think that more and more people, especially working class people, all over the world have simply decided to eat more pies? Fat is a class issue. Pretending it's all down to individual morality or laziness is a very cosy, but reactionary, position. Yes, I mean you too Paul Marsh if you're reading!


 
I understand this. But what got us into a particular mess is never gonna be the same thing that gets us out. I don't dispute the importance of class dynamics, I just think that overstating their power plays into the hands of the enemy. Telling people they can't help but be fat because they're poor and the state wants poor people to be fat is not empowering to anyone except the state.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well then the first step on the road to the destruction of capitalism must be our taking responsibility for and control over our own bodies. If we can't even do that then we're basically just brains floating in jars and we should all just give up now.


 

'The struggle against capitalism must begin not with the struggle against the food industry and the privatised sports and fitness industry but with hounding out the weak for their individual moral failure'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> 'The struggle against capitalism must begin not with the struggle against the food industry and the privatised sports and fitness industry but with hounding out the weak for their individual moral failure'


 
Weak is your word, not mine.

By implying that people are helpless in the face of the mind control techniques employed by Mr Kipling and Aunt Bessie, it is you who are calling them weak.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Telling people they can't help but be fat because they're poor and *the state wants poor people to be fat* is not empowering to anyone except the state.


 
No one says this, the state doesn't want poor people to be fat, it's simply a market externality of having a privatised food industry with access to sugar, high tech processing technology and the need for profits, and also of having a dieting and fitness industry that wants to help the victims of that industry but only if they pay.
The rich can act against it, the public provision is not there. It's a social pathology.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

So your solution is to ask the people responsible to stop what they're doing? 

Let me know how you get on with that. But I know what the junk food merchants will say when you're stood outside their offices with a placard and a megaphone, they'll say 'you don't have to eat it if you don't want to'. And all the social pathologies in the world won't change the fact that, on that point at least, they're not wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> So your solution is to ask the people responsible to stop what they're doing?
> 
> Let me know how you get on with that. But I know what the junk food merchants will say when you're stood outside their offices with a placard and a megaphone, they'll say 'you don't have to eat it if you don't want to'. And all the social pathologies in the world won't change the fact that, on that point at least, they're not wrong.


Is that really the limit of your political imagination? You can't envisage collective campaigns to susbsidise fresh fruit and veg, to provide free gyms and other facilities and so on? Campaigns like this have always existed over health issues - it doesn't take much thought to extend them to food and fitness issues.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Weak is your word, not mine.
> 
> By implying that people are helpless in the face of the mind control techniques employed by Mr Kipling and Aunt Bessie, it is you who are calling them weak.


 
Only you are suggesting that advertising from the food sector _alone_ is responsible for problems of obesity.
Hence you can turn this all in to 'the state wants poor people to be fat'. It involves, amongst other things:- generalised mental and social alienation... a direct by-product of capitalism, the shift to high-tech capitalism (broadly more stationary, less fat-consumptive work but just as tiring), appalling occupational health in general, increasing 24-hour work and night-shifts that disrupt eating patterns, an ongoing inability (despite 'Jamie Oliver') to promote childhood health over cost-cutting in LEA budgets, lack of a culture of communal exercise.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is that really the limit of your political imagination? You can't envisage collective campaigns to susbsidise fresh fruit and veg, to provide free gyms and other facilities and so on? Campaigns like this have always existed over health issues - it doesn't take much thought to extend them to food and fitness issues.


 
Well we already run a food bank, we cook public meals on a by-donation basis every week and we organise outdoor play sessions for the local kids. At no point do we tell any of the people who take part in these things that they're doomed to be fat because they're poor. 

Other people on this thread seem to approach the issue entirely in terms of what is beyond our control, not what is within it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Only you are suggesting that advertising from the food sector _alone_ is responsible for problems of obesity.
> Hence you can turn this all in to 'the state wants poor people to be fat'. It involves, amongst other things:- generalised mental and social alienation... a direct by-product of capitalism, the shift to high-tech capitalism (broadly more stationary, less fat-consumptive work but just as tiring), appalling occupational health in general, increasing 24-hour work and night-shifts that disrupt eating patterns, an ongoing inability (despite 'Jamie Oliver') to promote childhood health over cost-cutting in LEA budgets, lack of a culture of communal exercise.


 
Well then I guess we're fucked aren't we?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well we already run a food bank, we cook public meals on a by-donation basis every week and we organise outdoor play sessions for the local kids. At no point do we tell any of the people who take part in these things that they're doomed to be fat because they're poor.
> 
> Other people on this thread seem to approach the issue entirely in terms of what is beyond our control, not what is within it.


I wasn't on about charity and the systems left-overs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't on about charity and the systems left-overs.


 
Well then this week we'll stop giving out food to people who need it. If anyone is upset by this I'll let them know they can talk to you about it.

All our food for the food bank is donated by ordinary local people. The food for our public meals is paid for by the donations people give for it, even if some people can't afford to pay anything. Playing football in the street with kids doesn't cost anyone anything. It's not charity, it's mutual aid.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well then this week we'll stop giving out food to people who need it. If anyone is upset by this I'll let them know they can talk to you about it.
> 
> All our food for the food bank is donated by ordinary local people. The food for our public meals is paid for by the donations people give for it, even if some people can't afford to pay anything. Playing football in the street with kids doesn't cost anyone anything. It's not charity, it's mutual aid.


Yes, of course, that's what i meant - that you should stop your charity. I didn't mean that historically there have been campaigns aimed at forcing producers, importers, businesses and the state to do the things that i suggested. I really meant you should stop your localised small scale subsidies of these people and groups who should be the ones paying.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, of course, that's what i meant - that you should stop your charity. I didn't mean that historically there have been campaigns aimed at forcing producers, importers, businesses and the state to do the things that i suggested. I really meant you should stop your localised small scale subsidies of these people and groups who should be the ones paying.


 
Perhaps what we should do is make Coca-cola and McDonalds sponsor the olympics? That'll really hit them where it hurts.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2012)

Sounds like you're backpedalling and you knew your earlier pie-eating comments were stupid, Spocky


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Perhaps what we should do is make Coca-cola and McDonalds sponsor the olympics? That'll really hit them where it hurts.


I was actually thinking more of the collective struggles over health in italy in the 70s and the fight to win control over AIDs related activity in the 80s - and the potential extension of them to food, fitness, work regimes and so on. But i suppose that's the difference between us.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well we already run a food bank, we cook *public meals on a by-donation basis every week* and we organise outdoor play sessions for the local kids. At no point do we tell any of the people who take part in these things that they're doomed to be fat because they're poor.
> 
> Other people on this thread seem to approach the issue entirely in terms of what is beyond our control, not what is within it.


 
That's one free (presumably low-fat) meal a week, very commendable but...

_taking your advice_ "if fat people were in an oppressed minority they could bring an end to this oppression by simply, you know, being less fat" aren't you wasting your time, they can bring an end to their oppression._ On the basis of your posts,_ aren't you suggesting they are weak "LOL" by having a charity meal for them.

We're not all equally screwed, if someone has an ailment affecting a limb or their back, some are still forced to work to produce for someone else or to care for their children. So to reduce their pain, they cut down on extra activity. Unlike those who are richer, they do not follow the plan of action most conducive to their health, less work and much more physio-based exercise but are boxed in by economic pressure. A fair amount of obesity derives at first from a period after a different medical condition.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Playing football in the street with kids doesn't cost anyone anything. It's not charity, it's mutual aid.


 
Have you tried it in the streets of a major city?

Some demand the young kids go to the rec - occasionally the police step in. Community PC duo's letter came around to remind resident adults saying it was an offence. (And it is potentially dangerous with cars passing by). The rec is dominated by older hard lads, where they, especially young girls, feel uncomfortable - one of the few spaces where certain older teens/young adults feel they can control their surroundings. Not everyone can live in a sub-system where a dose of charity/mutual aid can put things rights.


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Only you are suggesting that advertising from the food sector _alone_ is responsible for problems of obesity.


 
The relationship between our bodies and our social relationships is complicated. And not simply "under our control".


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

Just in case the point isn't obvious - that slide shows a statistically significant relationship i.e. it's not a chance finding


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> "The fat community"
> 
> LMFAO
> 
> ...


 
For someone who believes themselves to be politically-aware, you're not very politically-aware.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Unfortunately some people don't have the economic freedom to do what they like. Some people have to buy what's cheapest and most convenient, and what's cheapest and most convenient isn't necessarily conducive to the long term health of their bodies.


 
You're not allowed to say this, because surely any responsible person can walk miles to a cheap market, or pick up discarded veg at the end of the day, even though it's use up time that would be better-spent elsewhere!


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're not allowed to say this, because surely any responsible person can walk miles to a cheap market, or pick up discarded veg at the end of the day, even though it's use up time that would be better-spent elsewhere!


Ah yes. Because all responsible people can walk miles, or go on scavenging expeditions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> So your solution is to ask the people responsible to stop what they're doing?
> 
> Let me know how you get on with that. But I know what the junk food merchants will say when you're stood outside their offices with a placard and a megaphone, they'll say 'you don't have to eat it if you don't want to'. And all the social pathologies in the world won't change the fact that, on that point at least, they're not wrong.


 
Hardly the only solution. IIRC Bob Holman's project up at Easterhouse got minimal local authority funding to subsidise a box-van for his community, which then brought fresh fruit and veg onto the estate and sold it at "wholesale plus overhead" prices to the community (less than half the price the nearest supermarket charged). It made enough of a change in only three or four years to show a decline in obesity-related health problems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ah yes. Because all responsible people can walk miles, or go on scavenging expeditions.


 
Well quite, and if they can't, they just don't care enough!


----------



## cesare (Oct 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well quite, and if they can't, they just don't care enough!


"Brains floating in jars"  

Lovely turn of phrase.


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> The rec is dominated by older hard lads, where they, especially young girls, feel uncomfortable - one of the few spaces where certain older teens/young adults feel they can control their surroundings. Not everyone can live in a sub-system where a dose of charity/mutual aid can put things rights.


 

Where I live every playground is definitely "owned" by a gang of some sort (i.e. not a formal gang but a loose group). I have had real issues trying even to use pre-booked and paid for pitches for football coaching because some of my boys do not feel safe going to them even with adults. It's been a real problem. (and my coaching is definitely mutual aid, I don't get paid). It depends alot on time of day etc, I wouldn't want to overstate it - certainly for me, but for kids safe space barely exists in cities now outside their own houses.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

co-op said:


> Just in case the point isn't obvious - that slide shows a statistically significant relationship i.e. it's not a chance finding


 
It would be interesting to see the relationship between income level and obesity for the individual countries, rather than just inequality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> "Brains floating in jars"
> 
> Lovely turn of phrase.


 
Made me think of pickled walnuts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Have you tried it in the streets of a major city?
> 
> Some demand the young kids go to the rec - occasionally the police step in. Community PC duo's letter came around to remind resident adults saying it was an offence. (And it is potentially dangerous with cars passing by). The rec is dominated by older hard lads, where they, especially young girls, feel uncomfortable - one of the few spaces where certain older teens/young adults feel they can control their surroundings. Not everyone can live in a sub-system where a dose of charity/mutual aid can put things rights.


 
I live in an inner city area and yes, the local rec is often not an option for the kids round here because it's simply not safe for them or they're likely to run into too many bad influences.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

Random said:


> Sounds like you're backpedalling and you knew your earlier pie-eating comments were stupid, Spocky


 
Perhaps, but they were made as response to someone even stupider than me (a quoted source, not a poster on here) conflating the suffering of obese people with racist oppression.

I don't object to this attitude because I hate fat people, I object to it because it contributes to a victim mentality that is counterproductive to any efforts to improve the situation.

I would never insult someone because of their weight, or presume to understand the causes of their problem, but I would stop short of agreeing with the idea that they have no responsibility for their condition. Obesity is not a 'class issue' but rather an issue where class is one of many contributing factors. As usual the same people as always are denying this fact and acting like this, like everything else, is only about class because they have a class-shaped axe to grind. And just like with every other issue, this reductionist attitude discredits and cheapens the working class these people are claiming to stick up for.


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> It would be interesting to see the relationship between income level and obesity for the individual countries, rather than just inequality.


 
The general rule is that there is no relationship with income level as such (ie there is no statistical likelihood that a poorer country will have higher obesity levels than a richer one) - that is why you get countries like Greece and Portugal up near the obese end of the graph despite the fact that they are much poorer than countries like NZ, Australia, the UK, the US etc who are also clustered up that end.What they have in common is high levels of wealth inequality.

But I can't find a graph showing this ^ relationship off hand, it's out there somewhere.

At the other end you do see a slight correlation with wealth - most of the lower obesity countries are richer - although, e.g. Spain is down there. This could be a confounder produced by the fact that more equal countries tend to perform better economically and are therefore richer (which has some evidence support). But it's getting a bit complicated after that so I'm bailing out here.


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Obesity is not a 'class issue' .


 
The lowest levels of obesity are found in the UK in poor men and rich women...so if it is a class issue it's certainly not a simple one. But the inequality correlation holds pretty well.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

co-op said:


> The general rule is that there is no relationship with income level as such (ie there is no statistical likelihood that a poorer country will have higher obesity levels than a richer one) - that is why you get countries like Greece and Portugal up near the obese end of the graph despite the fact that they are much poorer than countries like NZ, Australia, the UK, the US etc who are also clustered up that end.What they have in common is high levels of wealth inequality.


 
That wasn't quite what I meant, I meant it would be interesting to see how obesity varies with income bracket in each country.

I also notice that it is quite a small group of countries shown on that graph.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> That wasn't quite what I meant, I meant it would be interesting to see how obesity varies with income bracket in each country.
> 
> I also notice that it is quite a small group of countries shown on that graph.


 
The line on that graph doesn't immediately look like a statistically significant trend but I'll take co-op's word for it.

Inequality as a single figure also doesn't tell you much about the class structure in a particular country. A country with lower income inequality could have just as great a distance between the lowest earners and the middle class, but those low earners might simply represent a smaller proportion of the population. A small difference in the number of mega-earners, while irrelevant to most of the population, could also have a disproportionate effect on that income equality number.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> A small difference in the number of mega-earners, while irrelevant to most of the population, could also have a disproportionate effect on that income equality number.


 
Conversely, mega-earners might take a liking to mega-pies.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> Conversely, mega-earners might take a liking to mega-pies.


 
I have it on the good authority of several hundred Nottingham Forest fans that Derby County's goalkeeper ate_ all_ the pies.

Not knowing how much he earns of course, that fact alone isn't much use to us.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 30, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I have it on the good authority of several hundred Nottingham Forest fans that Derby County's goalkeeper ate_ all_ the pies.
> 
> Not knowing how much he earns of course, that fact alone isn't much use to us.


 
If he can fatten himself into a rectangle 8 yards wide and 8 feet high then Derby County will be unstoppable.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 30, 2012)

I like the idea of there being a Fat Community. With Fat Community centre and everything,


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I like the idea of there being a Fat Community. With Fat Community centre and everything,


 
They can keep skinny people out by fitting the place with a cattle grid.


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

8ball said:


> If he can fatten himself into a rectangle 8 yards wide and 8 feet high then Derby County will be unstoppable.


 


Neil Shipperley's becoming a goalie you say?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 30, 2012)

co-op said:


> The lowest levels of obesity are found in the UK in poor men and rich women...so if it is a class issue it's certainly not a simple one. But the inequality correlation holds pretty well.


 
I don't think anyone suggests it's a simple class issue, it's a complex cross class reality, but there was a study in the Lancet I think reviewing lots of studies concluding that obesity amongst lower classes is much more likely to come with other health problems, than the highest classes.

The trend for women (most alienated/alone in society, often as domestic workers/homemakers)  is fairly conclusive according to that graph you posted it's at 28% for women in the bottom fifth and drops to 16% for the top fifth on a steady trend. The men's one doesn't show that trend, but obesity comes more often with other health complications in the case of lower sociological 'classes'.

What is undeniable is that poor nutrition affects working-class people more, including many men in the non-obese category of the bottom fifth. Not having enough and being hungry is something many parents go through, many would rather give to their kids than have good food themselves, that's a situation affecting the lower fifths.


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I don't think anyone suggests it's a simple class issue, it's a complex cross class reality, but there was a study in the Lancet I think reviewing lots of studies concluding that obesity amongst lower classes is much more likely to come with other health problems, than the highest classes.
> 
> The trend for women (most alienated/alone in society, often as domestic workers/homemakers) is fairly conclusive according to that graph you posted it's at 28% for women in the bottom fifth and drops to 16% for the top fifth on a steady trend. The men's one doesn't show that trend, but obesity comes more often with other health complications in the case of lower sociological 'classes'.
> 
> What is undeniable is that poor nutrition affects working-class people more, including many men in the non-obese category of the bottom fifth. Not having enough and being hungry is something many parents go through, many would rather give to their kids than have good food themselves, that's a situation affecting the lower fifths.


 
Oh aye I'm not disagreeing with anything you have said, I just posted that graph to show that it is complex. There are lots of reasons why poorer people end up with worse health (being poor = having a generally shitter life, that's the point of it really), but one thing I find really interesting is the inequality stuff since it tends to show that nearly everyone would be healthier (i.e. all classes) if wealth inequalities are narrower. Maybe I'm just showing my miserable snivelling liberal side here but that should be a sellable bit of public policy I'd think.


----------



## co-op (Oct 30, 2012)

Anyway how did this thread get here? I thought it was supposed to be slagging off I.D politics?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 31, 2012)

the Weekly Worker students section have published this, imo, quite an enlightening article on the Assange/Galloway/NUS issue raised earlier on in this thread...




			
				Paul Demarty said:
			
		

> Michael Chessum – leftish bureaucrat and mainstay of the National Campaign against Fees and Cuts – lays out the essential case.1
> “A – Giving known and unrepentant rape apologists a platform is a fundamental barrier to creating a safe space. It effectively excludes a lot of people, especially survivors and victims of rape and sexual assault.
> “B – Giving rape apologists a platform contributes to a dangerous culture of not taking rape seriously, and excuses potential rapists for their actions. Rape apologism normalises rape. This is a direct and present danger to real people.”






> The argument is rehearsed because ‘official’ feminism has come up with this notion of a ‘safe space’. Does it mean rough stewards at the door, keeping hordes of marauding rapists out? Of course not: it means defining, _a priori_, the terms of _debate _in a meeting room so that nobody will feel unduly intimidated by what is said. It is, in short, a weapon of the bureaucracy. It serves selectively to protect dubious political arguments from the level of attack they deserve. (As an aside, the AWL wheels out bureaucratic ‘feminist’ technicalities to get its way and attack enemies as a matter of course.)


Without opening up the specificities of the Assange case again, and the author's opinions on legal definitions, I think the above quoted paragraphs really illuminate some other fundamental problems created by privilege politics and the 'safe space' corrollary which appears to have come with it. It is inherently bureaucratic - as the author notes, the whole purpose is to pre-define the terms of debate in favour of self-identified oppressed minorities before a discussion has even begun.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 4, 2012)

The discussion over on libcom is straightforwardly hilarious now. Even most of the people over there who at some level must know better are now terrified of being called patronising and dismissive. I've now come to the conclusion that this stuff really is going to fly on the British anarchist scene.


----------



## co-op (Nov 4, 2012)

I'm really surprised this stuff hasn't been all argued through a 1000 times already, I remember having these exact same debates in the 1980s.


----------

