UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Vassenor]

we won't go back on our current LGBT laws.

whatever politician wants to, the country won't let them.

Apart from the UKIP / DUP support for Mississippi-style "conscience clauses".

[Divitaen]

we won't go back on our current LGBT laws.

whatever politician wants to, the country won't let them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/andrea-leadsom-and-theresa-may-are-two-of-britains-most-prominent-homophobes-and-ones-about-to-a7125131.html

Unfortunately, May and Leadsom would both rollback the UK's progress on LGBT rights. May's had a terrible homophobic record in her time as Home Secretary over policy on LGBT asylum-seekers and Leadsom, we all know now, believes marriage is a Christian institution and same-sex marriage legalisation "harms Christians", apparently. And now that the UK is leaving the EU soon, sometime, May and Leadsom will have free reign to rollback LGBT protections and rights. Don't count on that not happening yet, its very much possible especially with two raging homophobes running for Tory leader.

[Val Halla]

we won't go back on our current LGBT laws.

whatever politician wants to, the country won't let them.

Apart from the UKIP / DUP support for Mississippi-style "conscience clauses".

They don't have that influence.

Tories do, and a party that's not exactly pro LGBT with a very clearly anti LGBT leader, is bad.

[Questers]

I agree they won't sanction any further progress.

but we won't go back. like i said—the country won't let them. politicians are not invincible.

[Wolfmanne2]

I'd argue that a woman in the top job is much less important than many women in senior positions. Such as, say, Corbyn's 50%+1 (original) female Shadow Cabinet.

Corbyn's cabinet was anything but a step forward for gender equality. He had create new cabinet out of thin air in order to ensure that was 50%/50% split (I think Gloria di Piero's appointment was last minute to ensure this) and the Great Offices of State were all held by men (Thornberry's appointment to SFS does make up for this, but I'd like to see a 50%/50% split). And having a woman in the top post is important; the Leader is the face of their cabinet. Most people in the country won't know that the Shadow Minister for Young People was di Piero, but they know the Leader of the Opposition is Corbyn (and if it was Kendall or Cooper, they'd know that too). Labour being the progressive face of equality, it does seem a bit odd that we've never had a woman Leader or Prime Minister.

I don't doubt there has been gendered abuse. I disagree that "Corbynites" that engage in abuse are inherently misogynistic - after all, we're either social justice warriors or misogynists, can't have it both ways.

Or brocialists perhaps? And if we're applying broad-brushed strokes, what Ostro calls 'social justice warriors' tends to be found on the right of the party oddly enough. If Blairism is the first ideology of important in Progress, feminism comes a close second. The issue with the left of the party is that I find many from that wing of the party are more focused upon a class-based, economically-focused analysis of society, meaning they tend to gloss over women's or minority issues, instead finding ways to appropriate them into their arguments. This means they fail to develop a proper understanding of them, thus misogynistic or racist issues raised by those involved in liberation politics that may exist aren't even highlighted within the left; rather it is appropriated into their narrative.

What I think the problem has been is the absolute hard-line social media activists (which all affiliations have, sadly the far left attracts more, and seemingly more ardent ones, and it saddens me so) who are so heavily ideologically opposed to anyone who isn't Corbyn that they would, and do, hurl abuse at anyone who isn't Corbyn.
In the case of female MPs and party members and public figures against Corbyn, there certainly will be some misogynists, but I feel a significant part of gendered abuse (ie, that used by most people engaging in gendered abuse) is simply because gender and political affiliation are the two most prominent aspects of a public figure, unless race is involved. Women don't seem at all hesitant to engage in gendered abuse against other women, after all.

I also still don't know what was supposed to be the problem with Jess Philips.

If a person calls me a 'paki', to me the idea that my race is the most prominent aspect of me does not make the person who called me that 'not racist'. Similarly, those people who send rape threats to Jess Phillips seem pretty misogynistic. Yes, gender and race may be our most prominent aspects, but I'm sure someone who is not racist or misogynistic can find some other aspect of me to criticise (and me being Wolfmanne, I'm sure everyone on this thread can find something to criticise about me).

Yeah, Jess Phillips is an enigma. I mean she is a bit annoying and I don't feel she is the rising star people make her out to be, but she has not deserved any of the abuse she's faced.

[Val Halla]

I agree they won't sanction any further progress.

but we won't go back. like i said—the country won't let them. politicians are not invincible.

Yeah, no. They know they won't remain PM for long, they could just go mad in that time. It's easy enough not to worry when something doesn't effect you

[Questers]

>brocialism
>commentary on socialism
>link to sjwiki

LOL

[Questers]

It's easy enough not to worry when something doesn't effect you

I understand the concern, legitimately: but I am not worried about it not because it doesn't affect me, but because I don't think it's likely.

edit: although yes it doesn't affect me

[Imperializt Russia]

Corbyn rightly derided the "great offices of state" thing as nineteenth century thinking. Many cabinet positions that did have women appointed to them would, in government, have great domestic power and influence.

Yes, people who would engage in racial or gendered abuse do have many other points to draw on than those.
However, people who choose to directly attack public figures by social media are evidently very lazy (except in their dedication) and clearly never bother. They justify to themselves that these people are so ideologically opposed to them and wrong that no valid criticism is necessary.
It's obviously not intended as sincere critique of policy. It's clearly attack and nothing but.

And yes, anyone who uses a rape threat is inherently misogynist. Note I never claimed that no person using gendered abuse was a "misogynist", and directly stated that I thought otherwise.

[Questers]

either you are a socialist or you believe in intersectional politics.

these things are mutually exclusive.

[Imperializt Russia]

either you are a socialist or you believe in intersectional theory.

these things are mutually exclusive.

Was that directed at me, or generally?
I honestly don't get intersectional theory (and didn't think I'd brought it or a tenet up).

[Questers]

either you are a socialist or you believe in intersectional theory.

these things are mutually exclusive.

Was that directed at me, or generally?
I honestly don't get intersectional theory (and didn't think I'd brought it or a tenet up).

it wasn't aimed at you

[Ifreann]

Not exactly a shocking turn of events.


A quarter of a million people voted for Corbyn to be leader of the Labour party. Why should he resign on the basis of a few dozen lacking confidence in him?

Because his party in parliament has no confidence in him as leader.

Are you saying that the parliamentary Labour party should be able to override the democratically expressed will of the wider membership of the Labour party?

I hope they refuse to work with him and oust him in coup. In almost every circumstance when a Prime Minister loses a vote of no confidence they resign because they don't have the support of their members in parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn isn't prime minister, lad.

---

That wasn't a rhetorical question Alyakia. Do you think all/almost all of the MPs who have voted against Corbyn are Blairites?

Alyakia and Souseiseki are the same poster?

We are all Souseiseki.

[Questers]

intersectional theory is the idea that relations of power and privilege "intersect" to create circumstances specific to the groups which are intersecting e.g. black women face different oppression to black men

and that rich white gay women face different oppression to poor black straight men

this is sort of obvious at face value, but the political discourse created by it is pretty dumb

[Wolfmanne2]

either you are a socialist or you believe in intersectional theory.

these things are mutually exclusive.

Was that directed at me, or generally?
I honestly don't get intersectional theory (and didn't think I'd brought it or a tenet up).

It was addressed at me, though why I'm not sure as I have never professed myself to be a big intersectionalist (I feel that in many cases intersectionality can be detrimental to liberation politic if we allow women's issues to be hijacked by racial issues and vice versa), so I must say I am a little puzzled by the usage.

[Questers]

Was that directed at me, or generally?
I honestly don't get intersectional theory (and didn't think I'd brought it or a tenet up).

It was addressed at me, though why I'm not sure as I have never professed myself to be a big intersectionalist (I feel that in many cases intersectionality can be detrimental to liberation politic if we allow women's issues to be hijacked by racial issues and vice versa), so I must say I am a little puzzled by the usage.

Or brocialists perhaps? And if we're applying broad-brushed strokes, what Ostro calls 'social justice warriors' tends to be found on the right of the party oddly enough. If Blairism is the first ideology of important in Progress, feminism comes a close second. The issue with the left of the party is that I find many from that wing of the party are more focused upon a class-based, economically-focused analysis of society, meaning they tend to gloss over women's or minority issues, instead finding ways to appropriate them into their arguments. This means they fail to develop a proper understanding of them, thus misogynistic or racist issues raised by those involved in liberation politics that may exist aren't even highlighted within the left; rather it is appropriated into their narrative.

[Divitaen]

Because his party in parliament has no confidence in him as leader.

Are you saying that the parliamentary Labour party should be able to override the democratically expressed will of the wider membership of the Labour party?

I hope they refuse to work with him and oust him in coup. In almost every circumstance when a Prime Minister loses a vote of no confidence they resign because they don't have the support of their members in parliament.

Well to be fair they probably should, his election and the subsequent Corbynite takeover of the Labour Party has forced the party so far to the left that now it is practically unelectable. And Corbyn's failure to rally Labour voters to vote Remain was more than sufficient evidence of his failed leadership, and couple that with his inability to garner the confidence of the Parliamentary Labour Party and that is more than enough reason for him to step down. And its also evidence that maybe subjecting the process to the vote of rank-and-file members may not have been such a great idea.

[Wolfmanne2]

It was addressed at me, though why I'm not sure as I have never professed myself to be a big intersectionalist (I feel that in many cases intersectionality can be detrimental to liberation politic if we allow women's issues to be hijacked by racial issues and vice versa), so I must say I am a little puzzled by the usage.

Or brocialists perhaps? And if we're applying broad-brushed strokes, what Ostro calls 'social justice warriors' tends to be found on the right of the party oddly enough. If Blairism is the first ideology of important in Progress, feminism comes a close second. The issue with the left of the party is that I find many from that wing of the party are more focused upon a class-based, economically-focused analysis of society, meaning they tend to gloss over women's or minority issues, instead finding ways to appropriate them into their arguments. This means they fail to develop a proper understanding of them, thus misogynistic or racist issues raised by those involved in liberation politics that may exist aren't even highlighted within the left; rather it is appropriated into their narrative.

Being involved in liberation politics does not make me an intersectionalist.

[Imperializt Russia]

>brocialism
>commentary on socialism
>link to sjwiki

LOL

Now, I thought my uni's feminist society was a bit loopy, but that page is something else.

[Questers]

i am half asian

wolfmanne is apparently ethnically subcontinental?

we have women on this thread (I think?)

we have gays and trans people (I think?)

we probably have black people & other ethnicities

we also have plenty of white people and straight people and men

what can all these people possibly find in common in order to unite them into a broad, egalitarian political movement

could it possibly be their socioeconomic status

[Questers]

wolfmay*

[Imperializt Russia]

My only solace to take is that I don't quite win privilege bingo in this thread's membership.

[Questers]

My only solace to take is that I don't quite win privilege bingo in this thread's membership.

ironically i usually score high on "PRIVILEGE CALCULATORS"

[Wolfmanne2]

i am half asian

wolfmanne is apparently ethnically subcontinental?

we have women on this thread (I think?)

we have gays and trans people (I think?)

we probably have black people & other ethnicities

we also have plenty of white people and straight people and men

what can all these people possibly find in common in order to unite them into a broad, egalitarian political movement

could it possibly be their socioeconomic status

I'm not South Asian, I'm half Maltese and half Nicaraguan.

Or, along side addressing economic issues, couldn't we also address racial issues, gender issues, LGBT issues at the same time as addressing them? I wouldn't really care much for living in a society of abundant resources if I had to deal with the constraints of my skin colour, or if women had to face misogynistic abuse, or if LGBT people couldn't marry each other.

[Questers]

I'm not South Asian, I'm half Maltese and half Nicaraguan.

oh right, sorry. i was just going off the slur in your last post.

Or, along side addressing economic issues, couldn't we also address racial issues, gender issues, LGBT issues at the same time as addressing them?

YES.

but not at the expense of the former.

(i'm not necessarily addressing your position btw)