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

[el-ahrairah]

my girlfriend rates it, she hasn't mentioned anything about racism and she's pretty heavy on that sort of thing. i have emailed her to accuse her of racism. i will let you know what she says.

she says she hasn't finished reading it and hasn't been racist in the bits she's read yet, so i was forced into a retraction following an angry phone conversation where i tried to explain that the internet said she was racist not me. sleeping on the fucking sofa tonight, i reckon.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's a fascinating book, arguably the most important radical feminist text. It also has a whole bunch of problematic elements, and some complete weirdness. Sihhi's point above is important: The timing is key. It's early in the feminist movement, and to a large degree it reflects the origins of American feminism in the civil rights and socialist movements and an attempt to give central priority to the oppression of women over the concerns of those movements. Much of the book's argument is an argument both with and against Engels.

Well worth reading. I'm a bit amused that the issue Penny was getting questioned about is the book's attitude towards race. There's a lot to question there, certainly, but there's some even more obviously hair raising stuff in there as well. As ba notes.

 

[Greebo]

<snip>sleeping on the fucking sofa tonight, i reckon.

Sleeping on the no fucking sofa, surely?

 

[rekil]

chapter 5 is fucking dodgy. In a 'trying hard and failing abysmally' sort of way. seriously, I have no defence of that chapter, it's unspeakably racist - but the rest I find useful.

If you don't agree that's it's racist then you're probably a misogynyist or something.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There's something rather distasteful in the current identity politics trend towards making previous articulations of identity politics beyond the pale because of the wrongheaded way in which they went about asserting the preeminence of their particular oppression.

I mean, really, did anyone actually think that Penny was endorsing Firestone's account of racism? Or that anyone at all reads Firestone because of her "insights" into race? Firestone's views on race were, to put it mildly, rather bizarre and I don't think it's particularly cynical to see them as being largely instrumentalist arguments, asserting the preeminent importance of women's oppression and therefore of a cross-racial women's movement (they were also a reaction to the sexism that was very common in the civil rights movement). As such they are something of an embarrassment, but they aren't the parts of her views that anyone I've ever encountered wants to learn from.

So what exactly is the purpose of "calling out" (urgh) Penny for saying that she likes Firestone's book? If it's just an implication that she hasn't read it, then fine, although I'd be reasonably confident that she has, given how often she's name-checked it. But if it's an assertion that Firestone shouldn't be taken seriously because she misunderstands racism in a confused and more than occasionally offensive way, well that sort of thinking, extended to all forms of oppression, would make a huge portion of interesting and useful writing beyond the pale. It's not far off dismissing Engels because he made some rather obnoxious jokes about gays.

 

[JimW]

There's something rather distasteful in the current identity politics trend towards making previous articulations of identity politics beyond the pale because of the wrongheaded way in which they went about asserting the preeminence of their particular oppression.

I mean, really, did anyone actually think that Penny was endorsing Firestone's account of racism? Or that anyone at all reads Firestone because of her "insights" into race? Firestone's views on race were, to put it mildly, rather bizarre and I don't think it's particularly cynical to see them as being largely instrumentalist arguments, asserting the preeminent importance of women's oppression and therefore of a cross-racial women's movement (they were also a reaction to the sexism that was very common in the civil rights movement). As such they are something of an embarrassment, but they aren't the parts of her views that anyone I've ever encountered wants to learn from.

I suppose it's easy to want to "catch them out" as that's how the uncharitable reading that a lot of their critiques boil down to come across as well.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you don't agree that's it's racist then you're probably a misogynyist or something.

Like that racist misogynist SpineyNorman bloke.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Jesus, they are really giving Penny an unfairly hard time on twitter about this one. One of the occasions where I can sympathise with her (although that sympathy is somewhat limited by a lingering doubt that she'd be above taking such an approach herself if it suited).

 

[el-ahrairah]

So what exactly is the purpose of "calling out" (urgh) Penny for saying that she likes Firestone's book? If it's just an implication that she hasn't read it, then fine, although I'd be reasonably confident that she has, given how often she's name-checked it. But if it's an assertion that Firestone shouldn't be taken seriously because she misunderstands racism in a confused and more than occasionally offensive way, well that sort of thinking, extended to all forms of oppression, would make a huge portion of interesting and useful writing beyond the pale.

Identity Politics doesn't do nuance. It doesn't understand that someone can be right about some things and wrong about others.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Identity Politics doesn't do nuance. It doesn't understand that someone can be right about some things and wrong about others.

I think it's more that such understanding is deeply selective. Points of view that reflect your own identity politics can be given quite a lot of leeway when it comes to things they say about other people's identity politics. Whereas other people's identity politics, or worse still views hostile towards identity politics, are often read in a manner that more closely resembles trawling for "call out" fodder than engagement.

 

[el-ahrairah]

I think it's more that such understanding is deeply selective. Points of view that reflect your own identity politics can be given quite a lot of leeway when it comes to things they say about other people's identity politics.

are you calling me a racist?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

are you calling me a racist?

Yes. Also an essentialist and a transphobe.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

One thing I always liked about Firestone and many of the other early feminist movement writers is that they knew how to write a polemic. No dancing around things. No equivocating. No trying to be diplomatic. Even when they were wrong, which was frequently, they were entertaining and interesting in a way that today's intersectionalista arguments rarely are. Perhaps partially because the intersectionalistas have to be constantly on their guard lest they say something inadvertently that could be seized on as ammunition.

 

[JimW]

Trance-phobia - The Essential Mix. dancehall classic.

 

[JimW]

One thing I always liked about Firestone and many of the other early feminist movement writers is that they knew how to write a polemic. No dancing around things. No equivocating. No trying to be diplomatic. Even when they were wrong, which was frequently, they were entertaining and interesting.

That's exactly what's so infuriating about this wishy-washy point-scoring crap. Must talk over far more interesting marginalised voices than it's ever enabled.

 

[DotCommunist]

One thing I always liked about Firestone and many of the other early feminist movement writers is that they knew how to write a polemic. No dancing around things. No equivocating. No trying to be diplomatic. Even when they were wrong, which was frequently, they were entertaining and interesting in a way that today's intersectionalista arguments rarely are. Perhaps partially because the intersectionalistas have to be constantly on their guard lest they say something inadvertently that could be seized on as ammunition.

like this?

They tell us the alternative is to hang in there and struggle, to confront male domination in the counterleft, to fight beside or behind or beneath our brothers—to show ‘em we’re just as tough, just as revolushunerry, just as whatever‐image‐they‐now‐want‐of‐us‐as‐once‐they‐wanted‐us‐to‐be‐feminine‐and‐keep‐up‐the‐home‐fire‐burning. They will bestow titular leadership on our grateful shoulders, whether it’s being a token woman on the Movement Speakers Bureau Advisory Board, or being a Conspiracy groupie or one of the respectable chain-swinging Motor City Nine. Sisters all, with only one real alternative: to seize our own power into our own hands, all women, separate and together, and make the Revolution the way it must be made—no priorities this time, no suffering group told to wait until after.

its good polemic alright

 

[Nigel Irritable]

like this?

Yes. It was almost like a house style, across the many and deep political divisions between early versions of what would now be called Radical Feminists, Marxist Feminists and even Liberal Feminists. Going in with the studs showing, as a football bore would say.

I'll forgive people quite a lot of being wrong, and even a fair bit of being a complete maniac, if they do so in an interesting and angry polemic. Unfortunately, if people wrote like that today they'd probably get sent for sensitivity training.

 

[sihhi]

So what exactly is the purpose of "calling out" (urgh) Penny for saying that she likes Firestone's book? If it's just an implication that she hasn't read it, then fine, although I'd be reasonably confident that she has, given how often she's name-checked it. But if it's an assertion that Firestone shouldn't be taken seriously because she misunderstands racism in a confused and more than occasionally offensive way, well that sort of thinking, extended to all forms of oppression, would make a huge portion of interesting and useful writing beyond the pale. It's not far off dismissing Engels because he made some rather obnoxious jokes about gays.

I haven't urged calling anyone out for anything. I urge the opposite and have been arguing for a fair while here that the only grounds to challenge these kinds of politics are solid class grounds whether white working-class or immigrant, male or female, disabled or non-disabled etc etc.

Any other territory and it's either wholly meaningless or inevitable failure, as their superior credentials in challegning ability privilege, male privilege, white privilege etc are pulled out.

LP refused to see how giving a slap up meal via the media for an essentially media-driven far-right organisation such as the EDL was not solid anti-racism.
There's zero point in leading a charge where you have no ground to stand on (Shulamith Firestone wrote some racist things, don't read her). Allows actual criticisms to be mangled.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I haven't urged calling anyone out for anything.

Hold your horses, I wasn't having a pop at you. I was talking about the twitter conversation, not your comments here.

 

[sihhi]

Hold your horses, I wasn't having a pop at you. I was talking about the twitter conversation, not your comments here.

My apologies.

Over-sensitive after some of the stuff the past few days.

 

[DotCommunist]

Yes. It was almost like a house style, across the many and deep political divisions between early versions of what would now be called Radical Feminists, Marxist Feminists and even Liberal Feminists. Going in with the studs showing, as a football bore would say.

I'll forgive people quite a lot of being wrong, and even a fair bit of being a complete maniac, if they do so in an interesting and angry polemic. Unfortunately, if people wrote like that today they'd probably get sent for sensitivity training.

Morgan was certainly kicking doors in and unashamedly so

Let’s run it down. White males are most responsible for the destruction of human life and environment on the planet today. Yet who is controlling the supposed revolution to change all that? White males (yes, yes, even with their pasty fingers back in black and brown pies again). It could just make one a bit uneasy. It seems obvious that a legitimate revolution must be led by, made by those who have been most oppressed: black, brown, yellow, red, and white women—with men relating to that the best they can. A genuine Left doesn’t consider anyone’s suffering irrelevant or titillating; nor does it function as a microcosm of capitalist economy, with men competing for power and status at the top, and women doing all the work at the bottom (and functioning as objectified prizes or coin as well). Goodbye to all that

this is not twitter

 

[Tom A]

It's almost like Michael Moore's chapter in "Stupid White Men" entitled "Kill Whitey".

However I still don't see how sharing the sharing the same gender and skin tone as the people "most responsible for the destruction of human life and environment on the planet today" automatically makes me guilty by association.

 

[sihhi]

Here's a summary of the last NUS Conference:

I spoke outside conference to a colleague who pointed out several incidents which had made Conference an unsafe space for trans* people. One in particular was campaigning by agents for Labour Students-backed candidates outside hotel rooms, including 8am doorknocking. Either they were willing to disturb non-conference hotel goers, or they had a list of delegate rooms, which could only have come from NUS authorities, which would be particularly concerning. In any case, the activist I spoke to claimed that ‘the [winning candidate’s] campaign had endangered safe spaces…and actively outed several trans* people. This is unacceptable and plays tribute to the lack of mention of liberation issues in the said campaign.’ He concludes that ‘The NUS staff, NEC and NOLS have colluded to create an environment on conference floor, where only white-cis gendered and able bodied delegates are able to speak freely.’

If this is the case it can only mean a rapid increase in sexism, racism, homophobia and disablism from a the NUS situation decade ago.

More generally I want to ask if intersectionality is winning real gains for the immigrant working-class etc etc, what exactly is going wrong?

By the second half of conference, an NUS sabbatical officer asked us to ‘thank Endsleigh (the insurance company) for all the help they have given the student movement.’ Never mind the students who had their heads kicked in on Whitehall defending free education, then. This was ten minutes after we had been patiently explained to why we really, really needed an unelected Chief Executive Officer paid £100,000 per year of students’ money to help represent students. After a couple more explosions of management speak, seemingly used without irony, I left to have a pint and mourn student democracy. Outside the conference, the mood was one of general despair at the intractable stage-managed nature of the whole affair. Independent candidates had got nowhere. First-time delegates were not even too sure what was going on. A series of errors with voting pads and a barrage of procedural motions including two votes of no confidence in the chair had delayed proceedings into a chilly evening. One Oxford NUS delegate recriminated a ‘lack of engaged debate’, whilst another dismissed the day’s sessions as ‘boring…considering the circumstances.’ The next morning, an independent candidate for student trustee said in her speech that she didn’t have a clue why she was standing there as she was never going to get in given the entrenched bureaucracy.

I really don't want to consider the possibility that £8,000 fees are the norm.

Also noticed - not as harsh as J Ed's example from the PhD guy attacking 'honky feminists', but there's a use of terms like 'white folk' and 'white people', it isn't racism, but repeated use leads to an overall sense of downgrading class analysis, not improving it by adding in nuances:

https://twitter.com/Selintifada/status/337253773812568065

Right now approx 3 million Muslims (4.6% of UK population) are being targets of an ongoing smear campaign. I do not have time for white folk

It's hard to understand this kind of stuff - tend to the 3 million who are Muslims, leave alone the 50 million who are white. Perhaps it is all just psychological therapy and should be ignored, but what about those who will mangle the stream of these kinds of comments for ulterior purposes.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's almost like Michael Moore's chapter in "Stupid White Men" entitled "Kill Whitey".

Well, with the exception that it was new and angry and reflected a movement that was just forming and developing its ideas, rather than being a weird mixture of smugness and self-flagellation from a rich white dude decades later.

 

[cesare]

My apologies.

Over-sensitive after some of the stuff the past few days.

Same here. Enquiry, any social experimentation going on here in last few days?

 

[Tom A]

but there's a use of terms like 'white folk' and 'white people', it isn't racism, but repeated use leads to an overall sense of downgrading class analysis

Thus ensuring the ruling class can continue to get away with screwing all working class people over, be they white or of colour, straight or queer, cis or trans, male or female, disabled or non-disabled.

 

[Tom A]

Well, with the exception that it was new and angry and reflected a movement that was just forming and developing its ideas, rather than being a weird mixture of smugness and self-flagellation from a rich white dude decades later.

One follows the other I guess. Although your original quote could have easily have been lifted straight from Tumblr.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

One follows the other I guess.

At a thirty or forty year remove. I disagree with most of that paragraph from Morgan, but you have to remember the context she was writing in: She wasn't "calling out" someone on twitter for getting their terminology wrong. She was writing at the birth of an angry and radical new movement, coming directly out of the civil rights movement and the socialist movement, both of which were drastically and openly more sexist than any similar movement today, and in opposition to a society which was more sexist than that again. It's a roaring fuck you rather than an entirely worked out analysis, and it certainly isn't the same as some rich white liberal proving their decency by flagellating themselves a bit.

 

[DotCommunist]

yes, its worth reading the whole piece and in context- its new left american and pretty scathing. A fascinating period as a whole tbf, if you have the time tom.

not that I am any student of it...

 

[JimW]

Think I'll just wait for the Molly Crabapple cartoon version.