Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Munroe Bergdorf sacked by l'oreal

500 replies

Biddlyboo · 01/09/2017 18:06

Has anyone seen this news story today? The irony that a mtt transgender goes off on one about race when the exact same thing can be said about men's privilege and society standing on the backs of women...
Sorry, just made me a bit Hmm
www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41127404/loreal-sacks-first-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf
Can't do clicky link!

OP posts:
Elendon · 03/09/2017 20:27

What props up the patriarchy is sexism Jiggly

Where African peoples of different nations socialised into submission? Is that why they were made slaves?

Elendon · 03/09/2017 20:28

Were not where.

orlantina · 03/09/2017 20:28

I presume some people on here saw the programme about schools and Boys and Girls.

All the messages given out to young children about boys and girls and how it affected their views and behaviour - all linked in to the wider messages picked up from society.

I wonder what would happen if they looked at white children and BME children in a similar experiment - how the teacher treated each child, the books, attitudes, wider messages and the effect it had on how the children viewed each other.

Puffpaw · 03/09/2017 20:29

Why is everyone shouting. Of course men are socialised to be sexist... the patriarchy?

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 03/09/2017 20:30

Where African peoples of different nations socialised into submission? Is that why they were made slaves?

That makes no sense in the context of what Bergdorf said or indeed anyone else on this thread. It is social conditioning today which makes white people racist.

quencher · 03/09/2017 20:30

How dare you be so patronising! Who the bloody hell do you think you are? No I wasn't. It is the basis of it. You, however, tried to deflect from what munroe stated by trying to dismiss socialisation. It's the pinnacle of how society works.

orlantina · 03/09/2017 20:30

What props up the patriarchy is sexism

I suspect that BME people might have a word like patriarchy that involves racism and what props that up.

orlantina · 03/09/2017 20:32

It is social conditioning today which makes white people racist

This - it's the messages given out that affects one groups view of another group.

We all get messages about groups that are different to us - and that affects how we see them and how that group sees themselves.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 03/09/2017 20:41

Where African peoples of different nations socialised into submission? Is that why they were made slaves?

It makes more sense the other way round. The social conditioning of the time allowed white races to enslave African peoples, and in some circumstances with the complicity of other African peoples. The social conditioning also permitted enslavement within African nations.

quencher · 03/09/2017 20:53

Don't give me pithy sayings. 'As the saying goes' Piss off with that shite. Who do you think you are talking to? The same way you think you are not submissive, this does not work with me. I am not pissing off. Deal with it. Maybe, I misunderstood you and answering your question as best as I can. Seeing that other people are confused too.

quencher · 03/09/2017 21:03

Where African peoples of different nations socialised into submission? Is that why they were made slaves? Yes they were. There is a saying tat I here a lot among African people. "They gave us religion and took our resources while we knelt down, closed our eyes and prayed". It literally does not mean this but relies on the role that religion played and still plays in our society in forms of socialisation and submission and being the way people heal when everything is taken away. You rely on a higher being than the people you know. (Someone once said it's the reasons poor people are very religious. This known being offers comfort and hope that one day things will be better. If you look at black Americans. Religion is rooted in that fabric. Poor countries around the world are more religious)

Elendon · 03/09/2017 21:30

Can we get some perspective on history here?

Socialisation or as Bergdorf likes to call it SOCIALISATION, didn't happen just 'today'.

Slavery happened well before missionaries. Black people existed in the United Kingdom well before slavery.

All men are socialised to be sexist.

Elendon · 03/09/2017 21:33

Quencher Please quit with the 'African people'

Africa is a continent. With many countries and peoples of different cultures living there. some are descended from white colonialists

I would never say European people.

Just stop.

orlantina · 03/09/2017 21:35

Please quit with the 'African people

Didn't you say this?

Where African peoples of different nations socialised into submission? Is that why they were made slaves

quencher · 03/09/2017 21:52

@Elendon I would like see an black Person born in Europe called European. I am not talking about what your passport says. I am talking ain't what people say when they look at you.
Black Americans are still African Americans even though they shouldn't any more. I will take your word on board! 🤔 not! Well know which Africans we are talking about when referring to slavery.

Secondly, tell me what happened to slaves when they were taken way.
1- they striped of their names.
2- their traditional religious where denied. Most practiced it in secret. Most of those religions have different values to what Christianity in both good and bad. In case you want yo pint at how great Christianity is.

What happened when colonial rulers took control? One of the ways to do that was to ban all the different traditional religions that the people held. Slave owners, missionaries and alive owners came from the same countries. I could say arabs too in regards to places like east Africa and the dominance in Timbuktu. I am in no way denying those who live in the north of
Africa being under the control of arabs and the racism that goes on.

Thanks @orlantina I thought so too. Grin pot, kettle I guess.

quencher · 03/09/2017 22:00

@Elendon and with that saying it could easily mean people. People build places and communities. If you take the strongest out the bunch. What is left is weakened society propped up by religion as the thing that holds it hogged. It's not different when countries have brain drains. the effects can be detrimental to a country's growth. That is why I said that it's not meant to be taken literally but the meaning is there in the saying. Thats the whole point and the role religion plays.

scottishdiem · 03/09/2017 22:17

Ah. Descended into the basic trope of white people cant be bad because black people helped with the slavery.

Mind you, I am glad that this line of thinking absolves men as a class/group of all the issues affecting women. Not their fault as individuals so its all good. Not sure where this leaves radical feminism anywhere other than an intellectual dead end but you people do you.

Alternative perspective. Written by a woman which I hope makes it more relevant. - thegrapevine.theroot.com/l-oreal-drops-1st-transgender-model-because-her-post-ca-1798706983

justanothernameagain · 03/09/2017 23:15

scottishdiem thanks for the article, enlightening.

So, I've just learnt:

  1. Munroe didn't make these comments this week. She made them in response to the violence of white supremicists at Charlottesville. They were taken out of context by the Daily Mail.
  1. She is absolutely talking about the bigger picture, She says "identifying that the success of the British Empire has been at the expense of the people of colour, is not something that should offend ANYONE."
  1. Because of the Daily Mail-instigated witchhunt, she was sacked by L'Oreal.

It's not as simple as she made some comments this week on social media and L'Oreal decided to sack her. The reality is more like she was given a platform and sucess, so the Mail set out to knock her down and succeeded.

We should not be supporting this circus.

justanothernameagain · 03/09/2017 23:16

Monroe's own words (copied from scottishdiem's link)

"First up, let's put my words in context, as the Daily Mail failed to do so. This 'rant' was a direct response to the violence of WHITE SUPREMACISTS in Charlottesville. It was not written this week.

Secondly, identifying that the success of the British Empire has been at the expense of the people of colour, is not something that should offend ANYONE. It is a fact. It happened. Slavery and colonialism, at the hands of white supremacy, played a huge part in shaping the United Kingdom and much of the west, into the super power that it is today.

Whether aware of it or not, in today's society the lighter your skin tone (people of colour included) the more social privileges you will be afforded. Whether that's access to housing, healthcare, employment or credit. A person's race and skin tone has a HUGE part to play in how they are treated by society as a whole, based on their proximity to whiteness.

When I stated that "all white people are racist", I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a SYSTEM rooted in white supremacy - designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are SOCIALISED to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist.

We also live in a society where men are SOCIALISED to be sexist. Women are SOCIALISED to be submissive. Gay people are SOCIALISED to be ashamed of their sexuality due to heterosexual people's homophobia. Cisgender people are SOCIALISED to be transphobic. We do not need to be this way. We are not born this way and we can learn to reject it. We are just socially conditioned to think this way from an early age. With the right education, empathy and open mindedness we can unlearn these socialisations and live a life where we don't oppress others and see things from other people's points of view.

So when a transgender woman of colour, who has been selected to front up a big brand campaign to combat discrimination and lack of diversity in the beauty industry, speaks on her actual lived experience of being discriminated against because of her race and identifies the root of where that discrimination lies - white supremacy and systemic racism - that big brand cannot simply state that her thoughts are not "in line with the ethics of the brand".

If you truly want equality and diversity, you need to actively work to dismantle the source of what created this discrimination and division in the first place. You cannot just simply cash in because you've realised there's a hole in the market and that there is money to be made from people of colour who have darker skin tones.

The irony of all this is that L'Oréal Paris invited me to be part of a beauty campaign that 'stands for diversity'. The fact that up until very recently, there has been next to no mainstream brands offering makeup for black women and ethnic minorities, is in itself due to racism within the industry. Most big brands did not want to sell to black women. Most big brands did not want to acknowledge that there was a HUGE demographic that was being ignored. Because they did not believe that there was MONEY to be made in selling beauty products to ethnic minorities.

If L'Oreal truly wants to offer empowerment to underrepresented women, then they need to acknowledge THE REASON why these women are underrepresented within the industry in the first place. This reason is discrimination - an action which punches down from a place of social privilege. We need to talk about why women of colour were and still are discriminated against within the industry, not just see them as a source of revenue.

Racism may be a jagged pill to swallow, but I suggest you force it down quickly if you want to be part of the solution. Doing nothing, does nothing and solves nothing. Empowerment and inclusivity are not trends, these are people's lives and experiences. If brands are going to use empowerment as a tool to push product to people of colour, then the least they can do is actually work us to dismantle the source, not throw us under the bus when it comes to the crunch. At times like this, it becomes blindly obvious what is genuine allyship and what is performative.

I stand for tolerance and acceptance - but neither can be achieved if we are unwilling to discuss WHY intolerance and hate exist in the first place."

SylviaPoe · 03/09/2017 23:43

I see nothing wrong at all with what she has said there.

Datun · 04/09/2017 08:39

Me neither. I don't understand why L'Oreal didn't make a statement to include the above. It would have made the DM look foolish and given them cred with their customers, both black and white.

If they had sided with Munroe and done some swift damage limitation (which wouldn't have to be much of a slog, given Munroe's articulate comments above), they, and she, would have come out of this on top.

They really, really could have used her to prove her point in a very positive way.

As it is, they've managed to be divisive. Especially after that clarification.

Own goal.

McTufty · 04/09/2017 08:47

I agree with everything she has said there. Those aren't the words she was fired for, which were rather more inflammatory.

BeyondLimitsAndWhatever · 04/09/2017 08:47

I agree

Datun · 04/09/2017 09:02

L'Oreal should have had a proper look at this. Called Munroe in for a meeting.

Shit, Munroe! Look at the DM! Wtf?

Lord, I was on a roll, fired up. This is what I meant.

Oh, ok. Phew. Let's issue a joint statement.

Is it because of social media? Is the whole world incapable of a spot of patience, face to face chat and a little reflection, before taking to their keyboard and issuing peremptory comments?

SophoclesTheFox · 04/09/2017 09:19

The only bit I disagree with in what Bergdorf has written above is that "cisgender people are socialised to be transphobic". Other than that, the issue seems to have blown up around some poorly chosen phrasing in Bergdorf's original statement, and then some bad faith stirring by the Daily Mail (what a surprise).

I got a bit lost halfway through this thread, though I think there's some interesting nuggets. I get that as a white person I move through a world where I'm not even aware of my passage being eased by my skin colour and the passport I hold. I like to think I'd mostly always been aware of this, but the message was driven home when I lived in the Middle East, where being white and British for once doesn't land you at the summit of privilege - that space was reserved for the local population. It was an eye opener because I'd never seen it exposed quite that clearly before, to the extent that jobs advertised specified the nationalities that ought to apply. It's a deeply uncomfortable space, but even after I left the discomfort remained because I know that the world I live in has the same unfairness baked into it, it's just more hidden, less obviously expressed.

But then there is the question: what can I do about that? And I don't know the answer.

Swipe left for the next trending thread