Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.

[redsquirrel]

I think I can disagree with Mr Apron about being told what my view is and that it's 'anti-women and anti-equality'.

It was you brought up the idea of 'trickle down'. Revolting tory phrase that, I've never used it and I can't imagine how you ever thought I was implying it. Posters here seem to be reading all sorts into my posts. I suggest you re read them. I'm beginning to feel like you are all trying to have a different discussion than the one I'm trying to have.

In my post #1499 I pointed to the huge inequality in pay here and pay of the poorest worldwide. I quoted other figures about the pay gap at the lower end of the pay scale, but no posters have addressed this yet.

Hang on, Butchers never told you what your view was nor argued that it was 'anti-women and anti-equality'. I've never stated or implied that you were arguing that the gap will be solved by trickle down. I did explain the structural inequality by a class analysis though, to which Athos added to. If anybody needs to re-read posts I think its you.

EDIT: Both myself and BA are talking about how a large section of the media, the establishment make such arguments under the framework of identity politics.

 

[seventh bullet]

Nobody has implied that about you. They've been talking about how it is being presented in the media.

So, men here have been critical of the above because they don't like women making more money than them? Can you back that up or is it just a smear?

 

[friendofdorothy]

Nobody has implied that about you. They've been talking about how it is being presented in the media.

So, men here have been critical of the above because they don't like women making more money than them? Can you back that up or is it just a smear?

It was a clearly a question I asked of emanymton in reply to his original whinge. Not a general 'smear'

 

[DotCommunist]

Someone on here did a good one on this. Wheres my #metoo. Plenty of late justice of a kind and opprobrium being visited on those high profile men now by high profile women, but wheres my* #metoo. Where's most womens moment of wider societal acknowledgement and consequences regarding how they've been been mistreated in the past at work and in wider society. I know I'm crossing two different things here but the point is similar I think. The endemic being addressed at the top, for the top, by the top. And even then... the backlash has been quick enough.

So where is the solidarity for women workers-for all workers tbf- at the low end represented by these movements towards equity in pay at the highest end?

*not literally me, I'm not a woman nor have I been sexually harassed in the workplace.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Someone on here did a good one on this. Wheres my #metoo.
<snip>
*not literally me, I'm not a woman nor have I been sexually harassed in the workplace.

Am I the only one to not follow Dottys point? what are you saying - 'you too' but that you've not sexually harrassed? that you want to express solidarity with the sexually harrassed? I'm baffled. What are you on about?

 

[DotCommunist]

Am I the only one to not follow Dottys point? what are you saying - 'you too' but that you've not sexually harrassed? that you want to express solidarity with the sexually harrassed? I'm baffled. What are you on about?

no that * bit was me clarifying I wasn't talking about me, I was mentioning a line of thought someone had expressed that seemed similar to the discussion.

 

[friendofdorothy]

no that * bit was me clarifying I wasn't talking about me, I was mentioning a line of thought someone had expressed that seemed similar to the discussion.

? still no idea of any of what you were on about.
I was trying and failing to get any solidarity for being illegally underpaid, under the equal pay act. You too?

 

[DotCommunist]

? still no idea of any of what you were on about.
I was trying and failing to get any solidarity for being illegally underpaid, under the equal pay act. You too?

what I was trying to point out was that the post about metoo from another poster (and another thread) did strike me as similar to people pointing out that the BBC pay row is the very wealthy equalizing. Does that make sense? The wealthy addressing wage inequality and past sexual abuse by powerful men in the workplace, between their own industries and class (look at how the westminster stuff went very 'in house' very quickly. Ranks closing etc) and you have to wonder 'and what about the rest of us'. Not denigrating wage equality organisation at all, my point was that I saw the frustration as similar. A passing thought anyway...

 

[Ralph Llama]

Solidarity is so 90`s yea . Fu*king commies (irony).

Erm, the problem with unbalanced intellectuals is they lose the plot all the time, getting caught up in narrow bands of analysis(single issue politics). Yes you have your figures for class, but you can`t just blinker yourself with those figures. We all know that slavery is alive and well in the UK, and maybe if you can factor in unpaid work (mainly done by women) the outcome would be different ?? Actually, there is no maybe about it! And it`s not just unpaid mothers and slaves, there now is a big exploitation culture around the disabled (gives them something to do innit- welcome to Tescos) and unemployed.
If you drop the borders and take a look at the planet as a whole(you know..the reality outside of the system)... whose privileged?
As for the post by emanymton; I wouldn`t credit it with analysis.

Maybe we had solidarity in the 90`s because our synapses were swimming in MDMA. Maybe we need some more MDMA.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ralph Llama Your contributions to this thread have been impossible to reply to because I can't tell what you're responding to, or whether you're responding to anything at all. They seem like the vague platitudes of someone who hasn't read the thread.

I don't know what the time zone is where you live, but if you're in the GMT zone maybe the hour of your posting isn't helping you to focus your points.

 

[Ralph Llama]

You are passive aggressive.

 

[butchersapron]

Seriously, give it a rest zaphod. There's load of old threads about the golden age of the 90s you can dig up. This is intended to be a serious non-shit-posting thread.

 

[danny la rouge]

You are passive aggressive.

No, I'm agressive. There's a difference.

If you want to respond to something try letting us know what you're responding to. Maybe even quote it so that we'll at least have a context. That way we can maybe have a discussion.

 

[Teaboy]

I think its a bot. Either that or a complete fuckhead, nothing makes any sense.

 

[chilango]

I might stasi button this one.

 

[Ralph Llama]

No, I'm agressive. There's a difference.

If you want to respond to something try letting us know what you're responding to. Maybe even quote it so that we'll at least have a context. That way we can maybe have a discussion.

No, I'm agressive. There's a difference.

If you want to respond to something try letting us know what you're responding to. Maybe even quote it so that we'll at least have a context. That way we can maybe have a discussion.

No, you were being passive-aggressive. Then I called you out on it. Now you are being aggressive. And that's your contribution to this thread? That could have been done with an IM. Nice one. It`s obvious what I was talking about. You haven't got the guts to be honest and tell me what it really is that`s annoying you.
I can`t be arsed with dishonest, passive-aggressive people like yourself and I won't be talked down to , you cheeky git.
Don`t worry, I won't bother posting on `your` thread again.

 

[danny la rouge]

No, you were being passive-aggressive.

Don't feel bad about getting this wrong: lots of people do. But passive aggressive means a reluctance to confront someone directly. I tagged you. Which you avoided doing here to me, you plank.

It`s obvious what I was talking about.

Nope. And it's not just me. Nobody knows what you're on about.

You haven't got the guts to be honest and tell me what it really is that`s annoying you.

See the post where I said you were spouting vague platitudes and didn't appear to have read the thread? That's precisely what was annoying me about your contributions here. Which is why I brought it up to you, directly.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Solidarity is so 90`s yea . Fu*king commies (irony).

Erm, the problem with unbalanced intellectuals is they lose the plot all the time, getting caught up in narrow bands of analysis(single issue politics). Yes you have your figures for class, but you can`t just blinker yourself with those figures. We all know that slavery is alive and well in the UK, and maybe if you can factor in unpaid work (mainly done by women) the outcome would be different ?? Actually, there is no maybe about it! And it`s not just unpaid mothers and slaves, there now is a big exploitation culture around the disabled (gives them something to do innit- welcome to Tescos) and unemployed.
If you drop the borders and take a look at the planet as a whole(you know..the reality outside of the system)... whose privileged?
As for the post by emanymton; I wouldn`t credit it with analysis.

Maybe we had solidarity in the 90`s because our synapses were swimming in MDMA. Maybe we need some more MDMA.

No I dont recall much solidarity in the 90s. Loved up dancing maybe. But things were similar in terms of sexist shit. If anything its worse now both in terms of sexism and solidarity.

 

[Tom A]

This is an interesting critique of the neurodiversity (aka "autistic rights") movement, which I found after masochistically going though the Twitter profile of one particularly unpleasant example of extreme IDpol (the 'identity' in question being disability). I have experienced first hand some of the bullshit that is spouted by disabled people's rights (and especially autistic people's rights) activists, which was my first taste of IDpol as discussed in this thread (Full disclosure: I have Asperger's Syndrome, like the author of the article). There is not much here that I disagree with, and plenty which at least gets me thinking about certain issues and specific dogmas which are held by the "neurodiversity movement". Having gone through his Twitter, there are some things I do not wholly agree with, but having seen how it is demanded that autistic people acquiesce to the needs to the so-called "autistic community" (as if we were all one collective mind with one common purpose and a set of common enemies), with any deviance resulting in the most vicious of attacks for daring to engage in wrongthink, I fully sympathise with him. Furthermore, his day job is working as a shop assistant, hardly a position of privilege in class terms, although as someone who is struggling with finding suitable work and struggling the benefits system I will say that I have to deal with a much larger sword of Damocles in the form of the DWP and the imminent arrival of Universal Credit - but that could easily be him too not so far down the line.

So, for people like him and me, identity politics has utterly failed us, and there is a lot more that could be done to further both our interests through some good old fashioned class struggle.

 

[Ralph Llama]

Don't feel bad about getting this wrong: lots of people do. But passive aggressive means a reluctance to confront someone directly. I tagged you. Which you avoided doing here to me, you plank.

Nope. And it's not just me. Nobody knows what you're on about.


See the post where I said you were spouting vague platitudes and didn't appear to have read the thread? That's precisely what was annoying me about your contributions here. Which is why I brought it up to you, directly.

Bullshit.

 

[danny la rouge]

Bullshit.

Seriously, what the fuck?

 

[Ralph Llama]

It means I don`t belive you.

 

[danny la rouge]

It means I don`t belive you.

About what?

Actually, don't bother. I don't care. And the thread's been derailed enough.

 

[Ralph Llama]

If you were following the thread you would see what points I was making in relation to the ones being discussed over the preceding few pages. Unless your stupid

 

[danny la rouge]

If you were following the thread you would see what points I was making in relation to the ones being discussed over the preceding few pages. Unless your stupid

I have read the thread. But I don't understand what you write; it doesn't make sense. If you have a specific point you wish to raise with me, then do so. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

 

[Ralph Llama]

Seriously, give it a rest zaphod.

I like this complement. Thank you.

 

[Ralph Llama]

I think its a bot. Either that or a complete fuckhead, nothing makes any sense.

Not a bot or a fuckhead thank you very much

 

[Ralph Llama]

I might stasi button this one.

What the thread. I wouldn`t bother. Everybody knows identity politics is a load of pointless destructive I dont know what idiot started this thread TBH.

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh God.

 

[Ralph Llama]

In my experience a lot of this stuff gets handed to people by their parents / families (or whatever immediate influential others) when they're small children, and I imagine that's really common for people growing up in some way apart from the mainstream dominant culture - be that children of immigrants or in an ethnic minority at a predominantly white /christian school or whatever. I think its a mistake to frame this so much as individual choice, a sort of voluntary consumerist type thing.

Could you give me sources on this. NOW !