Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by danny la rouge, Sep 20, 2017.
I'm a fan of a good cardigan, that isn't one.
Stuff like IS/Daesh is all about identity too, and about adopting oppression (as well as dishing plenty out, obviously)
Yep, and Israel, and on and on.
Stuff like this is very helpful for white supremacists. They can point to activists and say look how they hate white people. Wonder how many young guys trying to work out their politics felt rejected by the left and ended up into the alt right.
In the UK these groups don't get any meaningful hold. The BNP peaked at about 5% of the vote in the EU elections and then ended up with less than 1% in the general election in the following years General Election. Once these people make it into the UK public eye and onto the media their natural shittiness shines through and they wither on the vine.
I sort of agree, even a small folk festival will draw more people than a far-right demo can muster. That's (sort of) encouraging. and though I wouldn't say there's less identity at a small folk festival, there is usually less violence.
Fair enough I'm not really concerned about the alt right. But feel like idpol may turn people away from left-wing politics. People who otherwise may be interested in the idea of class solidarity, but they see the left as being about identity bingo and blaming white people. I'm not sure how much of an issue it is in reality.
I'm sure I'm one of many who rolls their eyes when they hear how white folks are the root of all evil. The progressive stack is one of those USA imports I hope doesn't take root here as it is fundamentally damaging to social cohesion.
The progressive stack? Is it 2012 all over again?
I've heard people using the progressive stack quite recently. Admittedly this was US academics on twitter. Whole thing about how minorities should always speak first in class.
Progressive stack was one of the reasons for occupy wall street downfall wasn't it?
it isn't though - so probably best avoid fighting 5 year old battles over again.
I think this is a bit wrongheaded - women of all classes are oppressed by men. That doesn't mean some women aren't more privileged than some men, in other ways.
Harvey Weinsteins victims are among the most privileged women on the planet: what happened to them wasn't only down to Weinstein's powerful position, but the power that men have in general over women. There's much that can be said about the fallout from the Weinstein & Me Too stuff about how it's the women with money, power and profile who're (maybe) seeing justice, and life is going on pretty much as before for the vast majority of women, but the relative oppression even these rich and privileged women experienced is undeniable.
I can see that privileged women experience oppression as compared to privileged men. The corporate glass ceiling springs to mind. Or women experiencing sexism and exclusion in male dominated professions. As you say, sexual abuse or everyday sexism is not restricted to class boundaries.
I'm not against those points at all. There's just something very unedifying about a woman who is very privileged claiming to be oppressed by men, when there are men sleeping on the streets and she's a middle class history lecturer or something. It's too simplistic lumping men in as a group like that. All the 'male tears' stuff bugs me in that context. It is genuinely unfair that a woman lecturer has less chance of moving to a senior position than a male lecturer. But it doesn't mean she's oppressed by men in general.
But this still doesn’t add up to all men being oppressors, or even all women being oppressed.
Right. Not sure where I've said that. or anyone has.
I think I misread your first line so fair enough, apols.
Who assigns identity? I am not clear about a lot of this because I feel I can claim several identity positions, all of which are handy in various contexts. Can we always claim our own identity? How do we agree on validity? authenticity? precision?
It's a hard needle to thread...with definite utility, especially when predicated on a 'rights' argument...but also has seductive dangers too.
We agree that some men do actively oppress some women. Not all do. But most of us are fucked over by the patriarchy.
I would hope so, in a modern society it isn't for others to tell you what your identity is or if it is more or less valid.
WTF is on his head. half a mega-raisin.
As somebody else has said more articulately in a different thread, 'identity' is just one more thing which has been offered up to keep the left alive (for what it's worth) after the decline of class politics, which the contemporary left is uncomfortable with anyway, and is a product of what Hobsbawm called the triumph of the individual over society.
In the great scheme of things, how you 'indentify' is worthless. Especially when it consists of what you've just chosen to make up to make yourself feel better in your isolation and angst.
I respectfully disagree. At a time of retreat / defeat amongst the organised working class, identity politics is being employed to keep it that way.
Just thinking about last time I argued with a group of idpol liberal types. I tried to say that there are other disadvantages which are less visible being overlooked. You can be white/male/cis but have serious mental health problems, poverty, could be an abuse survivor, homelessness, whatever. You can't always tell by looking at someone. Idpol focuses on visible identities, which don't even always indicate hardship.
If you're wondering how they responded to this (sensible, imo) point, it was along the lines of how white cis males won't let minority oppression be seen without bringing attention back to their own problems. Quite a misreading of the point.
More idiocy from the intersectional facebook page I follow. This time it's about Chess champion Anna Muzychuk boycotting the chess world championships in Saudi Arabia because she doesn't want to have the Kingdom's 'modesty' codes imposed on her and doesn't want to be chaperoned by men when she's there.
One member says: 'abaya (Islamic dress) is the national dress and considered a sign of respect- if its good enough for merkle its good enough for her. Accompaniment is suitable in this culture and also a matter of safety. Her interpretation of being treated as a second class citizen is islamophobic.' and 'feminists USUALLY miss the boat on muslim rights, especially about hijab, because white women always align with misogyny and misogynists reject autonomy of women and non binary ppl'
cultural relativism, check
defence of oppression of women, check
denunciation of all white women, check
... and this passes for 'progressive' politics nowadays?
(on another thread somebody got denounced as 'bioessentialist trash' for referring to 'female reproductive systems')
The right kind of patriarchy.
It's barely even politics. It's closer to just arguing over an unwritten, infinitely expanding and contradictory guide to etiquette.
Not sure what value there is in out of context quoting some random dickheads from a Facebook page and throwing your hands up tbh. You could (and people do) paint any group of people as dangerously deluded using the same method.
Fair point. As I've said on this thread before I think there are valid insights from intersectional theory and aspects of ID Pol so I wouldn't want any broad inference to be drawn from the postings I've shared.
It’s about control - through guilt/shame/simply overwhelming people with noise and drama.
ID/SJW Politics appeals to a particular kind of person.
Separate names with a comma.