Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The new right-wing political correctness

I mean, I love my feminist identity politics, ask anyone, but not voting for Corbyn because he's not a woman when the same person would have voted for a woman who held the exact same views is fucking stupid.

the one i heard being used is that there are so many people who will not vote for a woman because shes a woman that we should vote for the woman to counter that effect, then the elections are fairer.
 
images
 
I've still not seen the thatch film bio Its meant to be pretty solid as these visual hagiographies go. Don't think I'll bother tbh
 
Toby Young was at it yesterday in the Mail, complaining about Schama's use of 'suburban' as an insult on Question Time to Rod Liddle - 'Turn your suburban face away from the plight of the miserable'. Young's response, which I won't link to but is easily found, contains this belter 'To be honest, I’m fed up with being dismissed as selfish and materialistic just because I am a member of the bourgeoisie.'
 
It's probably just me but I find it impossible to see the words 'red brick university' and not immediately hear them in the style of Importance of Being Earnest's "a haaaandbag".
 
I see that the right's new favourite Labour MP (because she told that Diane Abbot, a conduit for their misogyny and racism, to fuck off and called Corbyn sexist) is now being attacked because she has dared to slight a male Tory MP.

Jess Phillips is clearly an idiot, but it's interesting to see the comparison in the reaction to these comments. When she slags off Corbyn it is accepted as fact and we are supposed to nod earnestly at the supposedly sexist make up of Corbyn's majority female shadow cabinet but the second she sets out of line and attacks a Tory on gender issues it is clearly that that is a step too far.
 
Hating Hillary: The One Thing Left and Right Men Can Agree On | GlobalCommentGlobalComment

Hillary-hate is Nation contributing editor Doug Henwood, greeting Clinton’s candidacy, this time around, with a book cover in which she is portrayed as a murderer aiming a gun at either (a) you, the reader, (b) the Democratic party, or quite possibly (c) Democracy itself.
Henwood turned out to be my breaking point, for this particular hate-wave. He provided the moment when I found out what happens on the other side of dread; when the anxiety of my internal monologue (they’re going to do it to her again; they’re going to do it to her again; they’re doing it to her again) broke, and clarified.
I don’t care if I have to end my career, end my friendships, or end my life with a Twitter-fight-induced heart attack, is what I thought, on the other side of fear. If there is anything I can do about this, they will not get away with doing it again


...

Those are the questions to ask yourself. Because this is when the issue snaps into focus. Hillary-hate isn’t just big, obvious declarations that she is a monster. Hillary-hate is also the double standards, the quiet elisions and distortions. It’s what happens when Ben Norton, one of the loudest and most vehement critics of Clinton’s Iraq War vote, advocates for Joe Biden’s candidacy without mentioning that Biden also voted for the Iraq War. It’s what happens when H.A. Goodman declares that voting for Clinton would be a violation of his principles, because she’s too much like a Republican — even though he was openly planning to vote for an actual Republican, Rand Paul, last year. It’s the fact that Hillary has to pass all the same tests that men do, plus several they are never required to take, and that she always has to score twice as high just to get a passing grade. As, for example, in the Democratic race, where she is consistently framed as a risky candidate to nominate, despite literally scoring twice as high as her nearest competition.

And whether or not you like Hillary Clinton, that has a massive impact. This is how little girls learn to doubt their own competence, to play down their ambition or intelligence. This is how little boys learn to treat little girls with contempt. It is how a new generation of young left-wing men is learning that they can leverage sexism to get their way, and that they can deal with women’s criticism — no matter how accomplished those women may be as progressive voices — by condemning those women for “playing the victim,” or calling them insufficiently leftist. It may be how young left-wing women learn that, if they see or experience sexism from the men in their lives, their only safe option is to be quiet and look the other way. And it’s why some white men are able to claim that they care more about marginalized groups than those women do, while also saying that if Hillary gets the nomination, they will attempt to split the Democratic vote and bring on a Republican administration that would be unmitigatedly disastrous and oppressive for immigrants, people of color, the poor, GLBT people, and (oh, yeah) women.

Vote for the racist, union-busting, welfare-destroying neoliberal war criminal or you hate not only women but specifically all 'little girls'. I wonder what that means for the women murdered and raped in misogynist violence by the right-wing military and paramilitary forces which HRC backed in the 2009 coup against Zelaya? Honestly it's worth highlighting the parallels between this and the neoliberal identitarian rhetoric in favour of Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper and against Corbyn during the Labour leadership campaign but given that we've reached this stuff already I think that it will eclipse it majorly.
 
The Israel Lobby’s Totalitarian Agenda: Smash Free Speech and Criminalize Resistance

While Israel lobbyists howl about the threat of intersectionality on campus, they are actively appropriating its identitarian language to undermine progressive social justice organizing on campus. Mark Yudof, the former University of California president who tacitly endorsed the criminal prosecution of Muslim-American students for protesting a speech by Israel’s former ambassador to the US, put the tactic on display by describing factual claims that Israeli soldiers deliberately kill civilians as a “microaggression against Jews.” At the University of Michigan, a member of the student governing council justified her vote against a resolution to divest from corporations involved in the Israeli occupation on the grounds that it denied “safe spaces” to Jewish students. And at the University of South California, a pro-Israel student conceded that the UC regents’ decision to classify anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism was an attack on free speech — but supported it anyway because, in her view, Jews are “a minority still so unfairly discriminated against and maligned.” Animated by the perceived ethnic slights of a hyper-privileged overclass, pro-Israel activism is essentially a White Lives Matter movement protected from accountability by morally inconsistent liberals. Indeed, many of the Jewish liberals who claim to have battled South African apartheid and marched alongside the civil rights movement now seek to destroy a struggle they inspired.
 
Toby Young was at it yesterday in the Mail, complaining about Schama's use of 'suburban' as an insult on Question Time to Rod Liddle - 'Turn your suburban face away from the plight of the miserable'. Young's response, which I won't link to but is easily found, contains this belter 'To be honest, I’m fed up with being dismissed as selfish and materialistic just because I am a member of the bourgeoisie.'

I suppose, if he'd prefer, we could dismiss him as selfish and materialistic because he's a gigantic cunt?
 
The way in which the BBC highest paid employees debate has been fought and contested by both people in favour of obscene pay and the institution fits into this I think. Rather than the question of obscene pay in and of itself, many BBC detractors including many to the right of say the present Labour leadership, have chosen to highlight that the pay disparity rather than being unjustifiable in and of itself is wrong because only 20% of those paid unimaginable amounts of money, rather than 50% or 51% or whatever, are women.

The BBC in turn has responded to criticisms by addressing, and pledging to amend, this disparity in pay through more gender representation rather than through a more egalitarian system of pay. So there you go, state broadcaster and majority voices of criticism of that state broadcaster both accepting the terrain of there is no alternative neoliberal management and a purely representative identity politics framework as the only legitimate way to raise and respond to grievances.

I really do think there has been an acceleration of this sort of discourse and politics even in the past year.
 
The way in which the BBC highest paid employees debate has been fought and contested by both people in favour of obscene pay and the institution fits into this I think. Rather than the question of obscene pay in and of itself, many BBC detractors including many to the right of say the present Labour leadership, have chosen to highlight that the pay disparity rather than being unjustifiable in and of itself is wrong because only 20% of those paid unimaginable amounts of money, rather than 50% or 51% or whatever, are women.

The BBC in turn has responded to criticisms by addressing, and pledging to amend, this disparity in pay through more gender representation rather than through a more egalitarian system of pay. So there you go, state broadcaster and majority voices of criticism of that state broadcaster both accepting the terrain of there is no alternative neoliberal management and a purely representative identity politics framework as the only legitimate way to raise and respond to grievances.

I really do think there has been an acceleration of this sort of discourse and politics even in the past year.

spot on, unholy combo of " the market decides" and " our bad, but don't worry, we'll sort the gender pay gap" ...jobs a good un
 
I'm just finished reading Walter Benn Michaels' book The Trouble with Diversity. It was published in 2006. In it he mocks a 'Diversity Management Firm' for offering to manage companies diversity policies as regards things like 'diversity of birth order' and 'diversity of thought'. The last was seen at that point to be self-evident nonsense that was simply opportunistic dollar grabbing and preying on liberal consciences in order to do so - soon to die. In this google twats letter he says:

  • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
  • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
  • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
 
Last edited:
Current Affairs | Culture & Politics

Corporations have long been co-opting radical and countercultural features of the cultural left. Every new form of rebellious aesthetic innovation is swiftly packaged and sold, every 60’s slogan about freedom or being yourself soon winds up on designer goods. The Paradox Of The Mass-Produced Che T-Shirt is a very old cliché by now. Still, one can remark at the sheer speed with which ideas, trends and terminology can move from anarchist bookshop obscurity to academic respectability to dominating the language at major monopolistic global corporations.

In particular, the language of “intersectionality” (the theory that different people are oppressed in different ways, and that these differing oppressions compound and intersect differently) has been keenly embraced by elements in the corporate world. Once confined to activist and academic discourse, intersectionality is now being used by some tech companies as a way to publicly demonstrate their liberal credentials. Tech risk assessment and management consultancy Deloitte’s web magazine asked “What if the road to inclusion were really an intersection?” (Even accepting the premise of intersectionality, this question makes no sense.) Deloitte urged its clients that an “intersectional approach that reaches all facets of corporate life is often more fruitful.” Fortune offered similar advice, under the headline “Tech Companies Shouldn’t Treat Race and Gender Separately,” and the originator of the term, Kimberlé Crenshaw, gave an enthusiastically received TED talk on “the urgency of intersectionality.” Corporations have long since absorbed progressive language about diversity and inclusion; the website of missile defense system company Northrop Grumman offers a detailed celebration of racial and gender diversity, with the weapons manufacturer boasting that it observes seven different pride and heritage months, contracts with minority-owned small businesses for drone parts, and hosts an annual Women’s Conference featuring field trips to the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial.

One can also hear echoes in the annual diversity report of corporate messaging platform Slack, which releases its employee demographic figures with an apology and promise to do better if the figures fall short (“We are going to keep talking about it. Of course, talk is not enough. We will continue to regularly report on our status so that we can be held accountable.”) This kind of “simultaneously self-flagellating and self-flattering apology” for failures on race and gender issues has become a standard part of progressive “call-out culture” online, with the “promise to do better” becoming a ritualistic public performance.

So, too, the infamous “safe spaces.” Business magazine Inc. explained “How to Create a Safe Space for Your Employees,” while Greg Cunningham, the new Vice President of Global Inclusion & Diversity at U.S. Bank, advised business leaders: “You have to create a safe space… encouraging people to take their masks off… You have to be willing to create an emotional space for people to talk…”
 
I would hazard a guess that the corporate co-opting of schools of thought arises in part, from training at business schools.Business schools, in their role of producing a courtier class, thrive on the appropriation of other disciplines and subvert them into a doctrine of "management" that reinforces the primacy of financial outcomes. Political economy, psychology, sociology and occasionally mathematics are all co-opted. Shameful institutions.
 
How long before the more heavy handed stuff makes its way into advertising? 'My shampoo will be intersectional or it will be bullshit, because I'm worth it'
 
Some of these reactions to Lewis' 'on your knees, bitch' comment are just incredible.








The fact that the Tories, and Blairites, have begun to ape the political behaviour of student union Trots is quite something. There is no way it is going to work either, they are lost in their own ruling class filter bubble, things like this just makes them look bizarre and the people they are attacking more reasonable.
 
Some of these reactions to Lewis' 'on your knees, bitch' comment are just incredible.








The fact that the Tories, and Blairites, have begun to ape the political behaviour of student union Trots is quite something. There is no way it is going to work either, they are lost in their own ruling class filter bubble, things like this just makes them look bizarre and the people they are attacking more reasonable.

I think I need a bit more background to fully understand this?
 
I think I need a bit more background to fully understand this?

At Labour conference during some Novara media party Clive Lewis said, joking, 'on your knees bitch' to another bloke as part of some sort of game. Right of Labour and Tories are trying to weaponise that as some sort of horrendously sexist and abusive thing to have said and done.
 
At Labour conference during some Novara media party Clive Lewis said, joking, 'on your knees bitch' to another bloke as part of some sort of game. Right of Labour and Tories are trying to weaponise that as some sort of horrendously sexist and abusive thing to have said and done.

Really? That's absolutely pathetic.

Did the supposed victim have anything to say about it?
 
Back
Top Bottom