Munroe Bergdorf makes George Floyd/Black Lives Matter all about Munroe Bergdorf

Wow, people telling black people what they 'should' be saying with regards to BLM

Well, you shouldn’t ask then [shrug]. I’m not going to apologise for offering a suggestion when you directly asked me for one. I have no interest in telling Bergdorf what to say, Bergdorf clearly wouldn’t be interested in my opinion.

It’s narcissistic to talk about how people should care about Bergdorf losing a cosmetics contract first, before they then start caring about a political movement.

“Focus all your attention on the bad thing that L’Oréal did to me three years ago and make them pay!”

How altruistic...

I still agree with notbad

Wow, people telling black people what they 'should' be saying with regards to BLM. And saying that if black people talk about themselves in relation to a specific issue (in this case Loreal's virtue signalling) , it's 'narcissistic'. It's all a little familiar isn't it?

Yes, Munroe is hypocritical in more ways than one, always has been. But I find it astonishing that people are criticising Munroe for talking about themselves on an issue that was literally about them, and then stating what they think Munroe should be saying as a black person.

I agree with everything notbad has said on this thread.

I too like what you did with that quote Pankhurst..

.. No wonder people think that MN is a bastion of 'white feminism'.

Which "people"?

You?

So what do you think Munroe should have said about Loreal's hypocritical virtue signalling then? Or should they just have left it, and said nothing, as anything else would be 'narcissistic'?

Or maybe Munroe should have displayed some integrity in the first place by refusing to take money from a multinational that makes its profit from the exploitation of women, and of black women in particular?

How difficult can this be? Why are people missing the obvious here?

How about

“It’s not about me, but this makes me angry: L’Oréal need to look at their own record of treating people who speak out about race. They can do better. We can all do better. If you care about #blacklivesmatter then directly support those who are protesting and putting their lives at risk in doing so, because that’s more worthwhile than choosing to buy make up from another company, which means fuck all in the grand scheme of what’s going on in the world right now”

Make a point about hypocrisy, point out who actually matters, support those who actually need it and don’t waste energy on pathetic corporate boycotts which make little difference. Done.

NotBadConsidering so what do you think Munroe should have said about Loreal's hypocritical virtue signalling then? Or should they just have left it, and said nothing, as anything else would be 'narcissistic'? Obviously Munroe going to make that particular issue about them, because it was them who was sacked!

I’m not interested in Bergdorf’s posting history. I’m interested in Bergdorf’s post about L’Oréal in regards to race. Bergdorf wants people reading to care about Bergdorf first, then #blacklivesmatter second, and punish L’Oréal for treating Bergdorf so badly, in a way that meant “the world’s press” were mean. It’s narcissistic to make L’Oréal’s post about how hurt Bergdorf was when the contract was terminated, and it is narcissistic to claim “the world’s press” gives a toss about Bergdorf. And it’s a shame because there is a point to be made about double standards, but Bergdorf’s posting history means nothing when Bergdorf reverted to narcissistic type for this post.

And L’Oréal are no better.

No wonder people think that MN is a bastion of 'white feminism'.

You can tell people's skin colour from their posts on Mumsnet? That's impressive!

I'd say that what Bergdorf is describing there is something being learned.

I like the re-framing of the quote, ThePankhurstConnection! Brilliantly exposes the double standards and hypocrisy.

Me being me, I'd still question and criticise the idea that 'misogyny isn't learned, it's inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege'.

If this thread was about a white woman who was fired for calling out oppression by men And was then angry when that same employer publicly posted about support and caring for women at a time it’s ‘fashionable’, it would be unanimously in support for her.

To continue the analogy: suppose the woman had originally done a deal with Playboy to promote their brand. And then she wrote a post about how exploitation of women by the porn industry was a bad thing, and Playboy decided they didn't want to work with her any more. And then at some later date Playboy made some virtue-signalling comment about the oppression of women.

Of course none of us would be impressed by the virtue-signalling. But I doubt if very many of us would be impressed by the woman's decision to take money from Playboy to promote their brand in the first place. And then if the woman started getting angry about the virtue-signalling, we would shrug our shoulders and say: what did you expect?

I do get it. Bergdorf has a valid point about Loreal’s hypocrisy. But Bergdorf made it all about them. Not a single mention of George Floyd. All about Bergdorf.

What disingenuous bullshit. One only has to look at Bergdorf's social media the last week or so to see that they have been talking plenty about George Floyd and others, sharing links to petitions etc. The Loreal thing only happened a couple of days ago anyway.

Can't believe I am defending Munroe Bergdorf tbh!

If this thread was about a white woman who was fired for calling out oppression by men And was then angry when that same employer publicly posted about support and caring for women at a time it’s ‘fashionable’, it would be unanimously in support for her.
Instead people are bending over backwards to explain why a black person should shut up about their experiences and anger at a time when we should be listening to them.

Yes, exactly, Pankhurst.

It does look like some people on this thread are determined to put MB in the wrong on this simply because of what has gone before (ie. MB being trans and disagreeing with them on women's rights etc).

I think Munroe is right about this. I also think they are a hypocrite because they are right about this.

But Bergdorf’s tweets don’t mention George Floyd at all. It’s all about them and L’Oréal, with Bergdorf’s own history of appropriation.

I don't know how far back you are looking, but Munroe has definitely mentioned George Floyd a lot on their Insta, and it seems like the conversation has moved forward into something bigger, as it has everywhere.

It does look like some people on this thread are determined to put MB in the wrong on this simply because of what has gone before (ie. MB being trans and disagreeing with them on women's rights etc).

Like I said, I don't like MB, and I think they are a hypocrite because of what they do to women, but I'm not going to criticise them on this. And to call a black person a 'narcissist' for calling out shitty behaviour with regards to BLM is fucking out of order to be honest.

No wonder people think that MN is a bastion of 'white feminism'.

I think Munroe has a point about the hypocrisy of L'Oreal but shouldn't be surprised that a company in a capitalist society is opportunistically exploiting virtue signalling to promote their brand - after all that is why they were hired in the first instance and fired after the first whiff of controversy. That is part of living by the sword and dying by the sword. We already know institutions , brands, companies are virtue signalling in this 'be woke' culture to get more sales - this is capitalism in action and yes, Munroe is right to be angry and frustrated by it I don't blame them. After all most women on this board are pissed off at companies/institutions/brands for exactly the same thing when they virtue signal about 'gender' and throw women under the bus, so in this instance I totally get why Munroe is angry and I think they are well within their rights to be angry.

Just one thought though I suspect Munroe would be really angry about blackface too - it being insulting, stereotyping and profoundly wrong. Which leads me to:

Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the violence of men any more. Yes ALL men. Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a sex is built on the backs, blood and death of women. Your entire existence is drenched in misogyny. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s.
Come see me when you realise that misogyny isn't learned, it's inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege. Once men begin to admit that their sex is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth… then we can talk. Until then stay acting shocked about how the world continues to stay f at the hands of your ancestors and your heads that remain buried in the sand with hands over your ears.

Who does Munroe want you to care about? Munroe.

Who does Munroe want you to punish? L’Oréal.

I mean it’s all right there, Bergdorf wrote it themselves.

So people can discuss the definitions and impacts of institutional racism all they like, but to infer Bergdorf’s tweets are about anything other than Bergdorf’s personal beef with a cosmetics company is not something I intend to do.

I don’t profess to know what all black people think as I haven’t asked them all, but more importantly, when people talk about their experiences of oppression, the only correct response is to listen and let them lead the conversation, not tell them how they’re explaining it wrong. It’s possible to believe a class of people collectively has a problem while also being aware that not every individual in that class behaves the same way.

Listening to people is not the same as agreeing that their analysis, or their lens for analysis, is correct. You can't talk about serious issues or ideas from that perspective.

Nor is the way you you are defining the problem of racism, or the language you are using, neutral, and they aren't the only ways to think about racism as a class or system problem. I didn't suggest that some don't feel there is a class based problem, though I believe some do. I am saying there are a variety of ways to think about and talk about that problem, views on the cause both historically and in contemporary situations.

You yourself are choosing one particular analysis and presenting it as if it is wholly justified by "listening to people's experiences". And somehow even the varieties of analysis within the black community - the ones whose experiences somehow justify your choice - don't count? I am really trying to get my head around how you are connecting those dots.

The only think I can really think is that the progressive media has presented this one way of thinking as the only one that is non-racist to such a degree that people aren't aware that there is even any disagreement about it. Not aware of disagreement across the reasonable political spectrum and even less aware that there is disagreement on the left.

Racism isn’t only about actively disliking black people or indeed anyone who isn’t white. It’s about so much more than that. Historical structures, ingrained prejudices we may not even realise we have, the simple fact that white people are less likely to experience things like being stopped and searched or having inadequate care during birth by virtue of being white, the way products are designed and marketed... I could go on. In short, you may never have said anything insulting or derogatory to a black person in your life, but yes, you can still have racist ideas or beliefs. You can have black friends and date or marry black people and still hold racist assumptions. A lot of the time it isn’t deliberate. Racism isn’t just an active choice, that’s the tip of the iceberg

If all white people are racist does that include the white people who have black partners and black children? Are mothers racist against their own black children?

If a black person marries a white person is it an act of internalised racism?