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

[ViolentPanda]

True. Blaming Ginsburg for the likes of Penny Dreadful is like blaming Led Zeppelin for existence of Whitesnake.

That fucker Page should have slit the schoolboy Coverdale's throat on his Satanic altar like he was supposed to, then none of us would have been subjected to decades of single entendre Whitesnake lyrics.

 

[Bakunin]

That fucker Page should have slit the schoolboy Coverdale's throat on his Satanic altar like he was supposed to, then none of us would have been subjected to decades of single entendre Whitesnake lyrics.

True.

Witness the rampantly sexist cheesiness of this Coverdale opus:

 

[smokedout]

That fucker Page should have slit the schoolboy Coverdale's throat on his Satanic altar like he was supposed to, then none of us would have been subjected to decades of single entendre Whitesnake lyrics.

in fairness deep purple were responsible for whitesnake, which is pretty bad because they were also responsible for deep purple

 

[Bakunin]

in fairness deep purple were responsible for whitesnake, which is pretty bad because they were also responsible for deep purple

The mighty Purple were also responsible for this stormer though, to be fair. Witness the awesome organ-fondling of Mr. Jon Lord, Esq, the Lordmeister...

 

[Firky]

What the fuck's wrong with 'you lot'?

When I read that it put the Christopher Eccelston sample in Orbital's "You Lot" straight into my head:



It's from that TV play a few years ago where the Second Coming was a man from Yorkshire.

"You are becoming Gods. There's a new master of creation - and it's you! You've unravelled DNA, and at the same time you're cultivatin' bacteria strong enough to kill every living thing. You think you're ready for that much power?

You lot?

YOU LOT?

Cheeky bastards... you're running around science like pithy ghosts.

If you want the position of God then accept the responsibility!"

 

[J Ed]

It's from that TV play a few years ago where the Second Coming was a man from Yorkshire.

That was ages back but it was really good

 

[sihhi]

Open questions especially to current HE and FE students:

How far are intersectionalists a reserve team on behalf of university management?

I was reading through this report from a different Laura - Co-President of the Bristol University Feminist Society - who apparently also stands as part of the NUS Women's Committee's Black Caucus (even though she has some issues with the caucus approach, describes it below).

She was reporting back from the NUS Women's Conference held early March this year:

It has little sense of putting forward ideas of actual struggle - staff strikes, staff non-cooperation with bureaucracy, student boycotts - more like being an aid to management.

SESSION: Fair to Care plenary

NOTES: really great research done to back an empirical evidence backed campaign to understand and aid the student
experiences of people with caring responsibilities - they are more likely to have financial, academic and mental health issues than the general student body.

ACTIONS: Make the University collect data on people that have caring responsibilities (a box to tick when
registering at the Uni). The research is still on-going so to encourage anybody at the University who has caring
responsibilities to take part in a research focus group so that the study can give prescriptive recommendations to
Unions about what carers need.

It almost sounds like doing the work of management itself (focus groups, prescriptive recommendations) so that some window-dressing or divisive mechanisms can be put in place by university HR and chancellors.
There's no mention of free (or as limited fees as possible) childcare. It's simply research for existing students only "anybody at the University", ie those working-class potential/theoretical but not actual students with childcare responsibilities who are already out of the loop will stay out. Is this 'intsersectionalism'?

SESSION: Workshop on Trans Feminism

ACTIONS: Make sure that the University offers a third box to tick when gathering data (other?). And try and get as
many toilets as possible converted to gender neutral. It was recommended that especially where there is a stand
alone single cubicle toilet, people will be more on board. E.g. there is a single women's toilet in 3-5 Woodland road
(go in the main entrance, first right into the English Dept.) which could easily be made GN.

Surely the way to solve the problem is to demand another toilet for men - not to simply change the label on an existing toilet how will that help anybody of whatever gender?

SESSION: Lad Culture

NOTES: Great research to give feminists empirical ammunition when talking about sexism on campus.

ACTIONS: As far as I understand, there is no recommended strategy for combating the problem, yet. NUS is in the
process of talks with other bodies to come up with a national strategy to fight against it. In the mean time, sharing
the findings of the research is good.

So NUS Women's Committee doesn't know what to do about university sexism, and is talking with other bodies.
Is this the fruit of the intersectional approach talking with every other liberal (identity or not) group under the sun - so much so that actual action against the sexism doesn't happen as easily.

Yet according to this account there was a lot of bluster:

I've been in a fair few feminist spaces and what stuck and really bothered me about NUS Women's
Conference 2013 was the anti-men sentiment. I think that I have a good understanding of the privilege of
men in our patriarchal society and, by all means, am fighting to combat it but I was shocked by the
derogatory tone of many of the speakers towards men, simply for being men. Although this sentiment was
not overly present in the motions and the official debate/conversation, I saw it in a much more unofficial
and insidious capacity. Worryingly, in fact, in a manner that mirrored the casual derogatory nature of
'banter'. For example, there was a point at which someone said that men could x, as long as they 'know
their place'.

I have nothing against this kind of talk against men(all men) - it happens and that's that.
But this all-women's group of the NUS can't recommend any strategy, can't stiffen the nationwide defence against the Unilad sexism, because it has to meet with other groups?? WTF?


On the black caucus.

My other main criticism of the conference was surrounding accessibility. Although I saw that there was an
active attempt to make the vocabulary of the conference accessible at the beginning, I don't think this went
far enough. As someone who has never attended an NUS event before, I had no idea and still have no idea
what a 'Caucus' is. It was a definite problem that 'Black' was not defined at the beginning of the conference,
especially since the NUS usage of the term is not the same as the general usage of the term. Although I fall
under the NUS definition of 'black', I was confused as I do not self-identify with the term in its general
usage. I believe that there was a fair number of 'black' students who didn't attend the Black caucus for this
reason.

This feeling might be represented in her final score for it being the lowest out of all of them:-

Black Caucus Black Women's Officer 6

Should it bother people that non-black and non-Asian minorities feel out of place in "black caucuses"?
They are, after all only a very small part of the population and only really experience discrimination in assumptions over their names, and problems with immigration and family status.
You could see the numerous aspects of racism which affect those who are more visibly black:- deaths in police custody, profiling for crime fighting, police failing to respond to racist attacks etc are a function of the police. So no number of black caucuses however well attended will end the deaths in custody until the whole working-class population assumes the mantle and self-confidence to assert itself in self-policing without capitalist police.
In intersectionality terms, it might suggest that white working-class young people who also feel the effects of police profiling (even though they might be able to modify it but dressing acting differently just as Muslim women might drop headscarves) could contribute to this struggle, which under the present situation of a 'black caucus' they are excluded from.
Obviously it's up to people how they organise on what grounds in what ways who they exclude or include, but I feel the whole championing of intersectionality by bits of the NUS is a mask for its wider structural failings.
However concerns such as mine about intersectionality (or aims to further explicitly working-class interests of all racial origins, genders and sexual inclinations) can be dismissed as 'unexamined privilege' and wanting to trample over black people, women, immigrants, homosexuals, transgendered people, disabled people, those suffering from poor mental health, those on the autistic spectrum etc.
Pushing through new quotas, new caucuses, new officer roles will come up against wider apolitical (rightist) tendencies within the NUS and this struggle will stand in place of actual struggle against management unless people are very careful.

 

[The Pale King]

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/kill-all-men/

Stavvers says "kill all men" and "die cis scum" are provocative structural critique. Thoughts?

 

[TruXta]

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/kill-all-men/

Stavvers says "kill all men" and "die cis scum". Thoughts?

Except he/she doesn't.

 

[The Pale King]

Open questions especially to current HE and FE students:

How far are intersectionalists a reserve team on behalf of university management?

I was reading through this report from a different Laura - Co-President of the Bristol University Feminist Society - who apparently also stands as part of the NUS Women's Committee's Black Caucus (she describes it below).

She was reporting back from the NUS Women's Conference held early March this year:

It has little sense of putting forward ideas of actual struggle - staff strikes, staff non-cooperation with bureaucracy, student boycotts - more like being an aid to management.





It almost sounds like doing the work of management itself (focus groups, prescriptive recommendations) so that some window-dressing or divisive mechanisms can be put in place by university HR and chancellors.
There's no mention of free (or as limited fees as possible) childcare. It's simply research for existing students only "anybody at the University", ie those working-class potential/theoretical but not actual students with childcare responsibilities who are already out of the loop will stay out. Is this 'intsersectionalism'?







Surely the way to solve the problem is to demand another toilet for men - not to simply change the label on an existing toilet how will that help anybody of whatever gender?






So NUS Women's Committee doesn't know what to do about university sexism, and is talking with other bodies.
Is this the fruit of the intersectional approach talking with every other liberal (identity or not) group under the sun - so much so that actual action against the sexism doesn't happen as easily.

Yet according to this account there was a lot of bluster:








I have nothing against this kind of talk against men(all men) - it happens and that's that.
But this all-women's group of the NUS can't recommend any strategy, can't stiffen the nationwide defence against the Unilad sexism, because it has to meet with other groups?? WTF?


On the black caucus.






This feeling might be represented in her final score for it being the lowest out of all of them:-





Should it bother people that non-black and non-Asian minorities feel out of place in "black caucuses"?
They are, after all only a very small part of the population and only really experience discrimination in assumptions over their names, and problems with immigration and family status.
You could see the numerous aspects of racism which affect those who are more visibly black:- deaths in police custody, profiling for crime fighting, police failing to respond to racist attacks etc are a function of the police. So no number of black caucuses however well attended will end the deaths in custody until the whole working-class population assumes the mantle and self-confidence to assert itself in self-policing without capitalist police.
In intersectionality terms, it might suggest that white working-class young people who also feel the effects of police profiling (even though they might be able to modify it but dressing acting differently just as Muslim women might drop headscarves) could contribute to this struggle, which under the present situation of a 'black caucus' they are excluded from.
Obviously it's up to people how they organise on what grounds in what ways who they exclude or include, but I feel the whole championing of intersectionality by bits of the NUS is a mask for its wider structural failings.
However concerns such as mine about intersectionality (or aims to further explicitly working-class interests of all racial origins, genders and sexual inclinations) can be dismissed as 'unexamined privilege' and wanting to trample over black people, women, immigrants, homosexuals, transgendered people, disabled people, those suffering from poor mental health, those on the autistic spectrum etc.
Pushing through new quotas, new caucuses, new officer roles will come up against wider apolitical (rightist) tendencies within the NUS and this struggle will stand in place of actual struggle against management unless people are very careful.

Pretty thin gruel at the NUS Women's conference from the sound of it. I agree that this isn't really activism in any meaningful sense, it's more akin to managerialism (which probably shouldn't surprise us, after all that's what the NUS trains you for - perhaps it was ever thus).
Seems to me this is part of a general tendency to pretty much back out of politics altogether, and fight proxy wars over representation and the composition of organisations.

 

[tenniselbow]

I was reading through this report from a different Laura - Co-President of the Bristol University Feminist Society - who apparently also stands as part of the NUS Women's Committee's Black Caucus (she describes it below).

Why do you feel the need to include a photo that you found on Google of the undergraduate woman you're writing about ? What relevance does it have to her views or your discussion of them? You did the same ad nauseum with Molly. Wondering why you feel the need to do this?

 

[chilango]

Why do you feel the need to include a photo that you found on Google of the undergraduate woman you're writing about ? What relevance does it have to her views or your discussion of them? You did the same ad nauseum with Molly. Wondering why you feel the need to do this?

Why wouldn't/shouldn't a photo be included?

 

[DotCommunist]

nice way to insinuate theres a grubby motive without actually saying it though eh- cheap

 

[chilango]

nice way to insinuate theres a grubby motive without actually saying it though eh- cheap

'xactly.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Why wouldn't/shouldn't a photo be included?

Because this isn't Redwatch.

 

[chilango]

Because this isn't Redwatch.

wtf is that meant to mean?

 

[cesare]

Never had sihhi pegged as an agent of the state - have I missed summat?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

wtf is that meant to mean?

It means that posting up photos of someone who is clearly quite young on one of the biggest bulletin boards around, makes them unnecessarily recognisable and so puts them at risk.

 

[chilango]

It means that posting up photos of someone who is clearly quite young on one of the biggest bulletin boards around, makes them unnecessarily recognisable and so puts them at risk.

Don't be daft.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Don't be daft.

I guess you'll be posting up a photo of your own daughter/sister/etc some time soon then.

 

[andysays]

It means that posting up photos of someone who is clearly quite young on one of the biggest bulletin boards around, makes them unnecessarily recognisable and so puts them at risk.

There might, perhaps, be a point here in relation to the most recent photo, but if that's the point tenniselbow is trying to make, maybe it would be better if they made it in a straight forward rather than insinuating way.

And I don't think the same argument works at all in relation to Molly C, so why tenniselbow is attacking sihhi for that too is a bit of a mystery.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

There might, perhaps, be a point here in relation to the most recent photo, but if that's the point tenniselbow is trying to make, maybe it would be better if they made it in a straight forward rather than insinuating way.

And I don't think the same argument works at all in relation to Molly C, so why tenniselbow is attacking sihhi for that too is a bit of a mystery.

I agree.

 

[Firky]

Loads of photos (well three( in the public domain.

http://bristolfeminists.wordpress.com/comittee/

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Loads of photos in the public domain.

http://bristolfeminists.wordpress.com/comittee/

It's the context though. A photo on a small blog likely to be read by a handful of people sympathetic to them, and most likely who know them in real life, is not the same as a photo attached to a hostile thread likely to be read by god knows who. I understand that there is an important issue being debated here wrt intersectionality and class etc, but it still remains a fact that women are quite often the target of more serious attacks/threats for being involved in feminism. I don't see the need for that last photo, and I am yet to hear any reasons for why it is necessary or appropriate.

 

[chilango]

I guess you'll be posting up a photo of your own daughter/sister/etc some time soon then.

Have done.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Have done.

Did she give her permission for you to do so? How old is she? What was the context, tone, subject and intention of the thread?

 

[chilango]

It's the context though. A photo on a small blog likely to be read by a handful of people sympathetic to them, and most likely who know them in real life, is not the same as a photo attached to a hostile thread likely to be read by god knows who. I understand that there is an important issue being debated here wrt intersectionality and class etc, but it still remains a fact that women are quite often the target of more serious attacks/threats for being involved in feminism. I don't see the need for that last photo, and I am yet to hear any reasons for why it is necessary or appropriate.

I doubt that a small photo buried deep within a 677 page thread is gonna add to whatever risk she might already face for being a public feminist activist.

A minute escalation of risk, maybe.

But Redwatch? Fuck Off.

 

[chilango]

Did she give her permission for you to do so? How old is she? What was the context, tone, subject and intention of the thread?

So public feminist activists in elected positions shouldn't be identifiable? Really? Ffs.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I doubt that a small photo buried deep within a 677 page thread is gonna add to whatever risk she might already face for being a public feminist activist.

A minute escalation of risk, maybe.

But Redwatch? Fuck Off.

I agree it is a small risk, but it is a risk all the same, and unless there is a good reason for the photo being included that trumps the reasons for not having a photo, it seems completely unnecessary. So can you explain what the photo adds to the debate?

So public feminist activists in elected positions shouldn't be identifiable? Really? Ffs.

She's not running for PM for christ's sake, she's part of some tiny university society that has next to no impact on wider politics.

 

[JimW]

Just seems of a piece with sihhi's "completist" style of posting-as-documentation. Can see from this thread that it's not a gendered approach so I think your concerns are misplaced, particularly given these are taken from the public domain and aren't really getting the sort of massive highlighting you seem to reckon by being on page whatever hundred of this thread.