Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[butchersapron]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/julie-birchill-bullying-trans-community

This.

Glad someone from oxbridge has finally spoken out about it.

 

[Balbi]

Isn't that what I said though?

Yeah, i'm still in the developer mode for my understanding.

 

[frogwoman]

Julie bindel and julie burchill have always been dodgy about this issue, as has suzanne moore iirc. Look at the whole radfem2012 conference debacle for example


there are some fucking cesspools out there once you get into the extreme end of "radical feminism" (how these people define it, i mean), they have basically turned feminism into nationalism. It's really scary.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

Sort of, it's if they use it, like LP did to shut down discussion or like Moore did, to dismiss it entirely - then they're doing it wrong,

So if a writer decided to opine on behalf of a group of people oppressed by something which the writer hadn't experienced, like...say...being poor and having grown up poor, and someone who was skint picked them up on it, you're saying the writer should sit back and listen?...perhaps even welcome the insight? This is intersectionality?
So how does screaming misogynist fit in...or is that perhaps allowed if the writer's female and it's a man who tried to set her straight on a few points?...cos that's 'mansplaining' as I understand it?

 

[frogwoman]

No idea why such naked transphobia is tolerated in the guardian and why they keep getting column space. as smokedout says even the daily mail wouldn't print this shit.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

they have basically turned feminism into nationalism. It's really scary.

That's very well put.

 

[frogwoman]

It's true, have a look for "radfemhub" and similar sites where these peoples work is promoted if you can stomach it. Theres no other way to describe it. Horrible stuff.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Tbh I think whoever approved Burchill's chucking-out-time rant must have had something against Moore. In theory it could have acted as a distraction, changing the focus from Moore to Burchill, but I don't think it's going to do that - it just aligns her with the Transphobic Bloc.

 

[Balbi]

So if a writer decided to opine on behalf of a group of people oppressed by something which the writer hadn't experienced, like...say...being poor and having grown up poor, and someone who was skint picked them up on it, you're saying the writer should sit back and listen?...perhaps even welcome the insight? This is intersectionality?
So how does screaming misogynist fit in...or is that perhaps allowed if the writer's female and it's a man who tried to set her straight on a few points?...cos that's 'mansplaining' as I understand it?

I'm new to this, not setting up as anything other - they're good points. And yeah, they should. And mansplaining is explaining things differently to a woman than you would a man, or explaining feminist experiences to feminists - I think.

 

[frogwoman]

I'm new to this, not setting up as anything other - they're good points. And yeah, they should. And mansplaining is explaining things differently to a woman than you would a man, or explaining feminist experiences to feminists - I think.

Mansplaining is a man telling a woman how she should be a feminist I think.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

This is a good open letter, I think. It's moving anyway. It's aimed at Suzanne Moore, but has wider resonance:

http://www.divamag.co.uk/category/comment/an-open-letter-to-suzanne-moore.aspx

NB: I have idea of Paris' educational background - approach with care

 

[Balbi]

Mansplaining is a man telling a woman how she should be a feminist I think.

Yes dear

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Tbh I think whoever approved Burchill's chucking-out-time rant must have had something against Moore. In theory it could have acted as a distraction, changing the focus from Moore to Burchill, but I don't think it's going to do that - it just aligns her with the Transphobic Bloc.

I thought Moore and Burchill hated each other anyway? Wasn't that what the whole "fuck-me shoes" thing was about years ago?

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

I'm new to this, not setting up as anything other - they're good points. And yeah, they should. And mansplaining is explaining things differently to a woman than you would a man, or explaining feminist experiences to feminists - I think.

So if I want to make a point about feminism to a feminist, can't I simply preface my point with:"understand that the following is a man's perspective on feminism and, furthermore, a point that you can't authentically comment on because you're not a man" and then say whatever I want?
Or can't I do that because I'm in the 'oppressor class' in this instance?
What about a black guy...or a black gay guy?

 

[equationgirl]

Julie bindel and julie burchill have always been dodgy about this issue, as has suzanne moore iirc. Look at the whole radfem2012 conference debacle for example


there are some fucking cesspools out there once you get into the extreme end of "radical feminism" (how these people define it, i mean), they have basically turned feminism into nationalism. It's really scary.

It is scary. And disgraceful. I'd never describe myself as a radical feminist purely because of people like this. They are going against everything feminism stands for with their divisive behaviour. Feminism is not about judging some women to be more equal than others, or saying that some women aren't 'real women', and it's most certainly not about hating men.

 

[Greebo]

I thought Moore and Burchill hated each other anyway? Wasn't that what the whole "fuck-me shoes" thing was about years ago?

AFAIK that was Moore v Greer.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

AFAIK that was Moore v Greer.

of course. Damn my failing memory.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Mansplaining is a man telling a woman how she should be a feminist I think.

We need a splaining word for when stuck up oxbridge twats try and tell everyone else about oppression. Etonsplaining? Islingtonsplaining? Fireboxsplaining? PennyRedsplaining?

 

[Greebo]

of course. Damn my failing memory.

An understandable mistake, given that Greer accused Moore (with her fuck me shoes) of siding with lipstick lesbians like Julie Burchill, and Moore sniped back about Greer's bird's nest hair.

So nice that, while the battle was still to be even halfway won on the issue of women's unpaid work, feminists could find time to fight over appearance.

 

[Balbi]

So if I want to make a point about feminism to a feminist, can't I simply preface my point with:"understand that the following is a man's perspective on feminism and, furthermore, a point that you can't authentically comment on because you're not a man" and then say whatever I want?
Or can't I do that because I'm in the 'oppressor class' in this instance?
What about a black guy...or a black gay guy?

The whole 'say whatever I want' bit of it is what gets me. It's not about saying whatever you want, or just sticking a disclaimer or dismissing criticsm of offensive views - Moore did that, and Burchill.

You know that's not the right thing to do.

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

We need a splaining word for when stuck up oxbridge twats try and tell everyone else about oppression. Etonsplaining? Islingtonsplaining? Fireboxsplaining? PennyRedsplaining?

We need a splaining word for when stuck up oxbridge twats try and tell everyone else about oppression. Etonsplaining? Islingtonsplaining? Fireboxsplaining? PennyRedsplaining?

Nah...it's obvious...remember your privilege

Checksplaining

 

[Balbi]

Oh, but essentially, intersectionality as an applied theory in real life is on bambi legs - there's not the weight of academic work or application for there to be too many solid answers. Which allows a lot of messing around.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

So nice that, while the battle was still to be even halfway won on the issue of women's unpaid work, feminists could find time to fight over appearance.

That's a good analogy for a lot of progressive politics.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Typical Birchill.

Fantastic trolling though - firky would be proud

The Grauniad/Observer now need to troll as much as the Daily Mail do, in order to increase vital web-based ad revenues, given they are up the shitter financially.

 

[DotCommunist]

We need a splaining word for when stuck up oxbridge twats try and tell everyone else about oppression. Etonsplaining? Islingtonsplaining? Fireboxsplaining? PennyRedsplaining?

cuntsplaining

 

[SpineyNorman]

The thing is though, this idea that people should just say what they want if they're part of an oppressed group, and be as aggressive as they want in doing so (please correct me if I'm getting that wrong) is just stupid and apolitical. It's clearly counterproductive - it's just going to alienate people who, were they treated with a bit of respect and were you to try and find common cause with - would probably be on your side.

 

[frogwoman]

The thing is though, this idea that people should just say what they want if they're part of an oppressed group, and be as aggressive as they want in doing so (please correct me if I'm getting that wrong) is just stupid and apolitical. It's clearly counterproductive - it's just going to alienate people who, were they treated with a bit of respect and were you to try and find common cause with - would probably be on your side.

It also completely ignores the fact that people in "oppressed groups" can also be cunts, we are all the product of capitalist society and will have internalised some of the values and other social prejudices no matter how oppressed we are.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So when Laurie sent me that email where she said 'I think I know where you're going wrong with identity politics' - was that cuntsplaining or checksplaining? I'm confused

 

[Ronnie Rubashov]

The whole 'say whatever I want' bit of it is what gets me. It's not about saying whatever you want, or just sticking a disclaimer or dismissing criticsm of offensive views - Moore did that, and Burchill.

You know that's not the right thing to do.

I'm not looking for a reason to say whatever I want in order to offend. I'm trying to see if the theory on which the whole thing rests could reasonably object to someone who did under its own terms. I don't think it can...not in the way I've seen it explained. Obviously, outright gratuitous abuse is inexcusable regardless...but I'm not even sure that minor group-specific objections fare any better...unless you resort to an expectation of basic courtesy.
If the whole thing's just being courteous then that's fine...courtesy always did involve knowing different things upset different people...why the new name...and theorising...and 'experts'?...who must be really nice people, now I think about it.

 

[equationgirl]

I think that the radfems are as bad as, if not worse than, misogynists. They make me really cross.