Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. After being set up via a contact, leaving Oxford University, she walked into a job at MTV Europe, from there into EMI's media division.

2. She's received a million dollar advance deal for writing what are 4 fairly short - in her own words - "trash" novels. Most of them openly espouse fairly traditional ideas non-feminist ideals (hero:make money if you can, be a wife if you can't).

n245819.jpg


3. Four generations of her family went to the same Oxford University college - Christ Church.

4. Her father - a prominent, rich stockbroker part of Investec's stocks and shares wing - is the chair of governors at another private school Mayfield

5. Her sister also attended exactly the same private school Woldingham (the premier Catholic service-based private school for girls in the country).

6. This is the family aristocrat-landowning tree (dad at bottom)
 
Also I wonder how much of the article is motivated by LP snubbing her when Mensch invited her to coffee in NY...
 
Making me agree with Louise Mensch on a few points in this article is the worst thing that Laurie Penny has ever done (to me)

First time I've seen some rightwing and British really have a go at an intersectionality buzzword:


“Check your privilege”, for example, is a profoundly stupid trope that states that only those with personal experience of something should comment, or that if a person is making an argument, they should immediately give way if their view is contradicted by somebody with a different life story. It is hard to imagine a more dishonest intellectual position than “check your privilege”, yet daily I see intelligent women who should know better embracing it.
Laurie Penny is an absolutely prime example; she does it all the time. The other day on Twitter she told people not to rise to what she felt was a race-baiting article by Rod Liddle in the Spectator. She was quite right. Everybody with a blog knows what “don’t feed the trolls” means. However, she was angrily contradicted by the black comedian @AvaVidal who told her that people of colour were striking back and they should rise to it. Instead of defending her position, Penny caved, recanted, and commented mournfully that “having your privilege checked” was painful. Not for a minute did she consider that another person of colour might have agreed that you shouldn’t feed the trolls. Or that she was just as entitled to her opinion as her interlocutor. No, the woman debating with her was a woman of colour and therefore, despite being clearly and obviously correct, Penny had to back down.
 
First time I've seen some rightwing and British really have a go at an intersectionality buzzword:


I think it's because most right-wing (or for that matter centrist or apolitical) people see this stuff then they just assume that it's what all socialists or Marxists think :(
 
Can anyone make sense of this?
This talk examines the narratives of professional transnational Muslim women of Turkish, Pakistani and Indian heritage living and working in Britain. Developing a postcolonial black feminist framework of embodied intersectionality, the paper explores the ways in which the regulatory discursive power to ‘name’ the ‘Muslim woman’ in the ‘West’ as either dangerous or oppressed is lived out on and within the body. Embodied practices such as choosing to wear the hijab, which one woman described as a ‘second skin’, allows an insight into the ways in which the women draw on their subjecthood and inner sense of self to negotiate the affective ‘postcolonial disjunctures’ of racism and islamophobia which framed their everyday lives. Embodied intersectionality as a feminist critical theory of race and racism shows how gendered and raced representation is powerfully written on and experienced within the body, and how Muslim women’s agency challenges and transforms hegemonic discourses of race, gender and religion in transnational diasporic spaces.

what are "the narratives of"?

What is "embodied intersectionality"?

What is the "regulatory discursive power"?

What is "subjecthood"?

What is "inner sense of self"?

Why is racism an "affective ‘postcolonial disjuncture’"?

What are "transnational diasporic spaces"?

How can "gendered and raced representation" be "powerfully written on" a "body" unless you are doing a Laurie Penny and biroing poems on your forearms?


part of a major defining annual lecture not a one-off study group



Birkbeck Race Forum & MA Culture Diaspora Ethnicity Annual Lecture 2013

‘A Second Skin’ | Embodied intersectionality, transnationalism and narratives of identity and belonging among Muslim women in Britain

Heidi Safia Mirza, Emeritus Professor of Equalities Studies in Education, Institute of Education

Thursday 30 May 2013 at 6.0, Room B20, Birkbeck, Malet St. Followed by drinks reception

followed by drinks reception anyway - LOL!
 
How can "gendered and raced representation" be "powerfully written on" a "body" unless you are doing a Laurie Penny and biroing poems on your forearms?

lol :D
 
FFS. It's just fiddling while Rome burns, isn't it?

Heidi Safia Mirza, sociologist professor of Asian Trinidadian heritage, is probably the biggest UK name writing on black feminism - published Young, Female and Black about about girls in 2 south London schools in 1990s, and then Black British Feminism.
The talk is happening as part of the Centre for Rights, Equalities and Social Justice at the Institute of Education, University of London.
 
1. After being set up via a contact, leaving Oxford University, she walked into a job at MTV Europe, from there into EMI's media division.

2. She's received a million dollar advance deal for writing what are 4 fairly short - in her own words - "trash" novels. Most of them openly espouse fairly traditional ideas non-feminist ideals (hero:make money if you can, be a wife if you can't).

n245819.jpg


3. Four generations of her family went to the same Oxford University college - Christ Church.

4. Her father - a prominent, rich stockbroker part of Investec's stocks and shares wing - is the chair of governors at another private school Mayfield

5. Her sister also attended exactly the same private school Woldingham (the premier Catholic service-based private school for girls in the country).

6. This is the family aristocrat-landowning tree (dad at bottom)




self-made yo'
 
It was 10 O Clock live show on channel four.

I saw this in the early hours on 4/7. It was a bit meh, with the only decent point being made by Christine Hamilton (bloody hell) that it was fairly much ok for middle class women now, and if anything needed to be done by feminists it was best to concentrate on women whose lives were generally harder. It wasn't really a proper discussion and all three ended up looking a bit divorced from reality.
 
sihhi, if those aren't rhetorical questions i'll answer them later with appropriate critique. mostly it's just academic-speak for stuff that should be obvious to most activists and works fine within the understanding of a multi-tiered class struggle analysis - not that i suspect they have one.... if it was a rhetorical question and you know all this then please accept my apologies, i've literally just got up and aren't very good at reading nuance yet :D
 
This comes as an enormous surprise! :D
Well, yeah :D Throw David Mitchell's piss-taking posh attempts to control the conversation into the mix, and it was more of a point and laugh session than anything else :D Which was probably the intention.
 
Can anyone make sense of this?


what are "the narratives of"?

What is "embodied intersectionality"?

What is the "regulatory discursive power"?

What is "subjecthood"?

What is "inner sense of self"?

Why is racism an "affective ‘postcolonial disjuncture’"?

What are "transnational diasporic spaces"?

How can "gendered and raced representation" be "powerfully written on" a "body" unless you are doing a Laurie Penny and biroing poems on your forearms?


part of a major defining annual lecture not a one-off study group





followed by drinks reception anyway - LOL!
How to write a call for papers just like a bona fide pompous academic

Step 1: Start a journal, preferably something electronic. Humanities academics are afraid of computers, and anything that's published online seems edgy and dangerous. Capitalize on their dismay by giving your ejournal a hip name with almost zero relevance to your chosen field like Sputnik (postmodern), Ellipsis (poetics), or Bloom (literary theory). Bonus points for choosing a title that's impossible to pronounce, like Wor(l)d-Smith-leery or Te*t. Get funding for your journal from a university body, even if it is only peanuts. It's important to be affiliate yourself with the higher ups. That always looks good on a CFP.
Step 2: Write a pretentious defense of your journal, involving a number of Latinisms and double negatives. For example:

"Saffron is a *new* electronic journal devised and disseminated by the department of comparative literature at the University of Ingersoll. Saffron is a spice of colour, the spice of life that permeates all substances it touches. The idea for our ejournal is not dissimilar; we seek to examine the idea of staining, of remainder and of transformation. The draw to saffron is that it is a precious and limited substance; it is not insignificant that the sexual organs of the crocus plant from which it is derived suggest a kind of renewal."

Step 3: Create an even more pretentious subject for the focus of your initial issue. Your issue theme should be somewhat related to your journal's ostensible focus, but it is imperative that the title of the issue be as obfuscated as possible. Use a colon.
For example: Saffron, Issue 1: "At the Heart of the Matter: Penetrating Loci"
Your CFP should also explain the focus of the issue. Here is where you stick lists of opposing terms and words that have little or no relevance to what you're actually interested in. Be creative! This is your place to demonstrate your word-smithery, your word-craft, the artisanlike qualities of verbosity with which you charm, implicate and (wo)manipulate your audience(s) and (de)monstrate your "smartyness." Equivocation is not only suggested but required.
Suggested buzz words:

  • Reformulate
  • Discourse/dialogue
  • Launching
  • Liminal
  • Ideology
  • Authority/authorize/author-ize
  • Represent/Re-present
Don't be intimidated if you don't know what any of these words mean: nobody else does either.
Step 4: Add generic categories that allow anyone to submit anything for consideration. You don't want anybody to feel left out, do you? Here's a good sample list:
  • Medieval
  • Renaissance
  • Postcolonialism
  • Writing Centers
  • Feminism
  • Folklore
  • Non-dramatic
  • Composition
  • Victorian
  • Gender Studies
  • Rhetoric
  • Marxism
  • Dramatic
  • Narrative
  • Queer Studies
  • Pedagogy
  • Children
  • Psychoanalytic
  • Multimedia
  • Deconstruction
  • Literature
  • (Sub)Culture
  • Anything else ever written or thought by humans, or, to be on the safe side, by any higher-order mammal.
Step 5: Make an insincere declaration to your readers promising impartiality in paper selection and quality in the editorial process. Nobody will believe you, but it is a nice touch anyway.
Step 6: Leave an email address for submissions and a deadline date. Then just sit back, pour yourself a whiskey sour and wait for the proposals to start flowing in.

http://philoillogica.typepad.com/philoillogica/2004/11/how_to_write_a_.html
 
I hate a lot of academic jargon for its inability to provide the language necessary to help people involved in political action, and I would even say a lot of it inhibits political action. But then since most of the left also offers a language that most people don't relate to and which positively inhibits participation in political action, I think people should ask if they are sitting in a glass house before throwing stones.
 
I hate a lot of academic jargon for its inability to provide the language necessary to help people involved in political action, and I would even say a lot of it inhibits political action. But then since most of the left also offers a language that most people don't relate to and which positively inhibits participation in political action, I think people should ask if they are sitting in a glass house before throwing stones.


i suspect most on this thread would agree with you
 
1. what are "the narratives of"?

2. What is "embodied intersectionality"?

3. What is the "regulatory discursive power"?

4. What is "subjecthood"?

5. What is "inner sense of self"?

6. Why is racism an "affective ‘postcolonial disjuncture’"?

7. What are "transnational diasporic spaces"?

8. How can "gendered and raced representation" be "powerfully written on" a "body" unless you are doing a Laurie Penny and biroing poems on your forearms?

1. the experiences of those who the lecture studies, presumably to be treated rightly or wrongly as anecdata in making whatever point they seek to make.

2. trying to make their brand of feminism automatically recognise that not all women's experience is the same. the argument generally made is that in the uk feminism is for white middle class women and doesn't include women from outside the islington milieu.

3. the mainstream media version

4. how a person responds to number 3.

5. how they want to see themselves, generally also influenced negatively by number 3.

6. because victims of post-colonial racism often internalise racism and attempt to live with it, co-opt it, and sometimes therefore pass it unconsciously through their actions. the disjunct is that they do not believe they are doing so, indeed may recognise the negative effect that colonialism has had on themselves and their community but still pass on the racist tropes of the colonial power.

7. banglatown, london and banglaville, paris, for example. the question being do bangladeshi (for example) immigrants to london have more in common with their Parisian counterparts than with native londoners or native parisians; and are these questions asked in the bit quoted being asked and / or answered in these communities.

8. it means visibly and physically adopted - for example are immigrant women taking on the hijab because of cultural pressures from both within and without the community due to post-colonial perceptions of what these women should be.

-----

the language use makes it clear who the lecture is for. it's nothing to do with anything except a bunch of internationalist academics and students talking about stuff that exists in a way that won't make any changes for anyone and can't anyway.
 
I hate a lot of academic jargon for its inability to provide the language necessary to help people involved in political action, and I would even say a lot of it inhibits political action. But then since most of the left also offers a language that most people don't relate to and which positively inhibits participation in political action, I think people should ask if they are sitting in a glass house before throwing stones.


The two aren't really separate, look at how Seymour writes in the Guardian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom