From the tweets?How do you know?
so the Ms addressing is actually part of the wind upBecause I read about it last year, Almost certainly on this wretched thread. Mx is a gender neutral title, which Monroe has donned after coming out as non-binary or suchlike.
I don't think so - I think the screenshots are contemporaneous, and the other tweets shown (as they still exist) show Monroe's current twitter name.so the Ms addressing is actually part of the wind up
...Staines’s number two, Harry Cole...
L. Penny giving her inner liberal free reign said:Luckily for me, I don’t have to decide whom to vote for, because I’m British. So Bernie v Hillary remains a pure thought exercise and, in that spirit, I choose: both. Why not?
You probably mean ringwalled, but what is the point of posting links to any site that has a paywall. Why not do a transcription of the article with an included commentary.
I made the mistake of reading L Penny's take on the US Democratic primaries.
Though Hillary Clinton has flaws, I’ll enjoy seeing her mash Donald Trump into a smear of hair tonic
You probably mean ringwalled
It's probably just as well that American parts of the Anglophone "commentariat" don't get much traction here. There is a whole genre of "I like to think I'm a radical, but..." apologetics for Clinton that would probably cause this place to collectively shit its pants with rage.
The Thatcher Problem
In the current US Democratic primaries, the issue of whether Hillary Clinton is really a feminist has been ferociously debated, and the conclusion appears to be that she is not. In fact, despite Clinton’s strong record of supporting abortion rights and equal pay, the verdict of many American pundits is that Bernie Sanders would be the true feminist candidate (as if the most radical possible outcome would be another white man in charge). This is, of course, another double-bind for women: it is beyond facile to pretend that Clinton would be more popular for being more feminist, when any woman quoting Dworkin on the stump would be guaranteed an electorally toxic “feminazi” tag.
Women do not deserve to exercise power only on the condition that we would do it “better” than men and promote the feminist cause. Women have the right to political office exactly as men do, and that means that we can do it well or badly, feministly or unfeministly – just as men have been doing for millenia. Women are entitled to be wrong and mediocre sometimes. Being wrong and mediocre is part of the human condition, and women are allegedly human. At the despatch box or in the boardroom, we should have our fair share because it’s simply a matter of justice. Until we have our fair share, we have no idea how the normalising of female power might change the world; but we don’t have to change the world to merit our half of it.
Can anyone decipher this from the New Statesman?
First paragraph says it is crucial to recognise Clinton is a feminist. Paragraph following says it neither interests nor concerns me about the type of women - feminist or non-feminist - at the top, so long as women have half the positions of political power.
Although why Ditum concerns herself with a left she has little obvious political connection to in the first place remains a mystery.
Corey Robin said:But that’s all incidental. What really strikes the reader is just how removed Schwartz is from the experiences of her generation, how utterly clueless she is about the economic hardships so many young men and women face today.
It’s true that Schwartz graduated from the tony Brearley School in Manhattan (annual tuition: $43,000) in 2005 and Yale (annual tuition, fees, and costs: $65,000) in 2009, whereupon, after a few detours, she landed a spot at The New Yorker, from which she reports on Paris (cost: priceless).
But does she have no friends or relatives who are struggling with student debt, low-paying or nonexistent jobs? Has she not read an American newspaper or magazine in the last twelve months? Is the cognitive divide between the have’s and the have-not’s that stark, that extreme?
Whatever the case may be, the Sanders campaign has brought that divide to light. We officially live in a world, to paraphrase Bob Fitch, where 90% of what goes on at The New Yorker can be explained by vulgar Marxism.
A = Will Self?
B = Katie Hopkins?
C = Laurie Penny?
I am very ill so I have gone through some old stuff to take my mind off my chest, so pointless game:- guess the commenter
A) To sit in Pizza Express eating a pizza is to partake in a mystic communion with the cosmopolitanisation of the British bourgeois in a way that no other chain-restaurant experience quite achieves.
B) I hope no U-turn on EMA. Was given to 50% of 6th-formers. Are half of British parents unable/unwilling to provide? Bred dependency culture.
On refugees
They live in twilight ghettos in Hackney, Brent, Lewisham and Hounslow. They lodge with friends. They are exploited. I hate the idea of a two-tier citizenship but that is the price these people must pay for taking refuge in London.
One evening in September 2015, I sat down to watch the season premier of Doctor Who. What I saw disturbed me. Beginning with the opening scene, Black men were repeatedly killed within moments of appearing on screen. It was the old Black guy dies first trope. I was mad, pausing the show to mutter to myself about racism and decide if I’d continue watching.
That same night, a friend’s brother was murdered in Chicago. He didn’t even make it to 30. I called my friend the day I got the news. I could hear the devastation in his voice, each labored breath almost choking the words out of him as we talked. “Chicago spares no one,” he lamented.
The separation between life and death is at the same time a chasm and a small crack. I had to stop watching a TV show for a few minutes; my friend’s brother had to stop living. The juxtaposition brought into stark relief one notion in particular: there’s a big difference between representation and reality. Unfortunately, as the latest round of internet hysteria following Beyoncé’s new video “Formation” demonstrates, many would-be pundits recognize no such distinction.
A textual analysis of a Beyoncé video tells us almost nothing of the political conditions facing actually existing Black people, regardless of how “Black” one believes its content to be.
“I think parts of this video are as radical a seeding of visionary futures as the lunch counter sit-ins,”one author says. Wait a minute. The lunch counter sit-ins actually happened. They weren’t a music video, and they weren’t a cultural representation. The sit-ins shut down businesses and sometimes even whole towns, upending day-to-day realities in the fight against racial segregation. People got hurt. It’s beyond me how those insurgent events can be favorably compared with a Beyoncé song that says “Always stay gracious, best revenge is your paper.”
Adolph Reed, Jr., in his book Class Notes, explains that these writers deal in “cultural politics.” Their claims are predicated on the premise “that interpreting literary texts is identical with interpreting the wider world.” This falsehood is what allows them to strip actual political events of all context in order to create a false parity with pop culture representations—say, for instance, equating a Beyonce video with the sit-ins.
Reed concludes that this fallacy “empties the idea of political action of all meaning.” Most crucially, he dispels the common assumption that class and identity politics are opposing, mutually exclusive ideologies: