Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags
- Thread starter Prince Rhyus
- Start date
- Status
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I have no idea what intersectionality means either. I did hear a good anecdote about someone who met LP at a party and had no idea who she was which caused LP to be a bit off with her to the merriment of other guests who think she's up her own arse.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
When I was originally told this anecdote I had no idea who she was either. The penny has finally dropped, as it were.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Intersections of, for example, feminism, non-whiteness, sexuality, gender, disability.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Well, I got it from the horse's mouth (not Laurie Pony, the guest who'd never heard of her).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Intersectionality:
if you get three Os in a row you get to have class based prejudices. There is also a version where being rich, attending the best schools, the best unis, having the best jobs, the best private health care, the best access to elite networks etc count as Os. There's also the one that a lot of the people who've been talked about over the last few pages play, that's a mix of both of the above ones.
if you get three Os in a row you get to have class based prejudices. There is also a version where being rich, attending the best schools, the best unis, having the best jobs, the best private health care, the best access to elite networks etc count as Os. There's also the one that a lot of the people who've been talked about over the last few pages play, that's a mix of both of the above ones.
Balbi
Hey, Dean Yager!
Intersectionality:
if you get three Os in a row you get to have class based prejudices. There is also a version where being rich, attending the best schools, the best unis, having the best jobs, the best private health care, the best access to elite networks etc count as Os. There's also the one that a lot of the people who've been talked about over the last few pages play, that's a mix of both of the above ones.
A strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Blagsta said:
It's a password to the cabal. Those who don't understand it (i.e. the vast majority of people) don't get to access the discourse. They use this nonsense (and other rhetorical devices) to identify one another, and to conceal the absence of any substance. Like the emperors' new clothes.
rekil
to menny cranks
Halfway there already.Me in March 2011 said:
Happy new year Laura!
PS. There are forrins on this board.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
It's a concept designed by a black American, middle-class, feminist legal scholar called Kimberle Crenshaw in 1988/9.
Their organisation (from which the image is from) is the AAPF which features on its board several law PhDs and lawyers, a union international officer sell-out, a sociologist who studied in America and UCL at the head of a progressive media foundation, a former (Soros) OSI figure, an anti-racism instructor for the US military (essential to stop the buds of soldier resistance sprouting), and a senior figure at multi-million burglar-alarm firm Tcyo International.
http://aapf.org/mission/board-of-directors/
Nearly all of them are either stationed in universities or at the top reaches of "nonprofits" ie charities, except the final figure Lydia Mallett whose day job is the role at Tyco.
Cue privilege analysers': 'Marx & Engels owned a factory'
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's an absolutely natural comment from someone committed to identity politics, though - the hegemony of your identity group.
Because that is what identity politics and privilege theory, bound as they are by human action, ultimately resolve to: Not equality for all regardless of identity, but hegemony for your group, and those groups that your group are simpatico with. I'm not implying genocidal intent here, by the way, but rather that if you start from a premise that a group or groups should be excluded from even basic consideration, you merely construct a new mechanism of othering, which you then dress up by claiming that it redresses "ancient wrongs".
I suspect that the author of that comment, in common with many of these fine people, has about as much reflexivity as a breezeblock.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
"British Left": Never-had-to-worry-about-getting-a-British-passport-privilege. LOLjoke
I'd love to know who "the people who are meant to be its best and most fervent fighters" means.
This whole god-damned thread came from her calling the SWP as cockroaches as a joke
Before that, she was friends with the SWP:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Just a new way of presenting the fairly obvious fact that none of us have what you might call a homogeneous personal identity, pointing out that our personal identities are made up of various facets - class (although that one gets left out by most modern-day "thinkers", the twats), gender, ethnicity, age, health status, sexuality etc.
Of course, what intersectionality often misses is that personal identity is even more faceted than that, that personal idenity also comprises of choices: The football team you choose to support; the music you like; the way you choose to dress. People who gob on about intersectionality don't really like to acknowledge quite how diverse identities are, though. It puts a crimp in the easy pigeonholing. After all, it's far harder to pigeonhole a white male, a black females or an Asian intersex if you acknowledge that beneath the label lies a complex individual who shouldn't be reduced to being the sum of that label.
</rant off>
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Sorry to play the pedant but the video is from Marxism 2011, but this thread was started in 2010.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
someones tweeted about how disliking privilege theory makes you an OWM.plus 'intersectionality' no, me nieher
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
seen it mentioned before but what is it?
spawnofsatan
Down by the river
Oppressed white male.
Not entirely sure to be perfectly honest with you, froggy. I know it's to do with how societies are built around dominant controlling groups / oppression and that's about it really. I think it is synonymous with intersectionality but I will no doubt be told it isn't and that I am wrong about kyriarchy too.
One of those words that sticks in your head.
Edit to add:
Linky:
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... So when we talk about woman asserting power over other womyn, we're talking kyriarchy. When you witness woman trying to dominate, define, outline the "movement" or even what an ally should be - that's the kyriarchal ethos strong at work.
http://www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/08/why-i-use-that-word-that-i-use.html
Not entirely sure to be perfectly honest with you, froggy. I know it's to do with how societies are built around dominant controlling groups / oppression and that's about it really. I think it is synonymous with intersectionality but I will no doubt be told it isn't and that I am wrong about kyriarchy too.
One of those words that sticks in your head.
Edit to add:
Linky:
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... So when we talk about woman asserting power over other womyn, we're talking kyriarchy. When you witness woman trying to dominate, define, outline the "movement" or even what an ally should be - that's the kyriarchal ethos strong at work.
http://www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/08/why-i-use-that-word-that-i-use.html
spawnofsatan
Down by the river
Sure sounds like kyriarchy to me
It's great having a dense new jargon you can use to intellectually belittle and intimidate those who don't understand it, who didn't go to uni and study critical theory for years and get access to this American way of thinking, it really keeps the scum away from radical politics.
It's the language that've created for themselves that I hate most of all. Whatever you think of the theory, the way it's expressed is atrocious.
It's the language that've created for themselves that I hate most of all. Whatever you think of the theory, the way it's expressed is atrocious.
Yes.
I nearly posted I haven't heard the word intersectionality outside of uni and that was when I first heard the word kyriarchy too. Don't think I have used either term since as people look baffled.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Most of them didn't and don't do critical theory (and none of this stuff is to do with critical theory, which would be contemptuous of this stuff despite exhibiting the same sort of everyone else is the problem attitude) or even know what it is - they do english or history.
You could jusy say "you can't reduce everything down to class" for example. I mean that's just common sense isn't it?
Capitalism is a gendered economic system, it relies on racial priviliges and heirachies, I don't think you can effectively challenge capitalism unless you do take on these facts and treat them with the due respect, but the idea that "oh we'll overthrow capitalism then it'll be ok for women, racism will no longer exist" nah that's just bollocks. I suppose if something is challenging that vulgar Marxist way of looking at the world then fine, but surely there's a better way to do it than identity politics top trumps? The whole thing is such an individualist way of looking at the world, and so much of the time it just reeks of liberalism to me, even when it's masquerading as anarchism.
It will be a lot worse at alienating ordinary people than even the most tautological and obtuse Trot bullshit, I don't know anyone outside of a tiny minority of students I knew at uni who are into this stuff, and I can't see it getting any traction. If anything it might fuck up anti-racist and anti-sexist struggles that takes place, and drive people into the arms of the far-right, who use language anyone can relate to and promote a much less esoteric brand of identity politics that relies on well-established tropes that are implicitly understood in our political culture, not constructing new ones with you and your 6 mates.
Capitalism is a gendered economic system, it relies on racial priviliges and heirachies, I don't think you can effectively challenge capitalism unless you do take on these facts and treat them with the due respect, but the idea that "oh we'll overthrow capitalism then it'll be ok for women, racism will no longer exist" nah that's just bollocks. I suppose if something is challenging that vulgar Marxist way of looking at the world then fine, but surely there's a better way to do it than identity politics top trumps? The whole thing is such an individualist way of looking at the world, and so much of the time it just reeks of liberalism to me, even when it's masquerading as anarchism.
It will be a lot worse at alienating ordinary people than even the most tautological and obtuse Trot bullshit, I don't know anyone outside of a tiny minority of students I knew at uni who are into this stuff, and I can't see it getting any traction. If anything it might fuck up anti-racist and anti-sexist struggles that takes place, and drive people into the arms of the far-right, who use language anyone can relate to and promote a much less esoteric brand of identity politics that relies on well-established tropes that are implicitly understood in our political culture, not constructing new ones with you and your 6 mates.
- Status
Similar threads
