Munroe Bergdorf sacked by l'oreal

[Biddlyboo]

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
www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41127404/loreal-sacks-first-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf
Can't do clicky link!

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

Isn't the answer the same as what men can do about male privilege?
What would you say to a man asking what he can do about male privilege?

Talking to my BAME friends after this incident, just acknowledging that it exists is a really big step. I think I've always assumed I thought that we live in an inherently racist society but they clearly didn't.

On your Middle East point Sophocles, I've heard lots of people say similar about Japan.

Totally agree with Sophocles point about cis gender. Plus, I'm uncomfortable about the beauty industry generally and a person born male thinking that 'diversity' in this industry is somehow liberating for women generally.

I don't think it's the same, orlantina. I occupy a different space in the world of sexism than I do of racism. What would you do?

What would you do

As a teacher, I have worked with BAME pupils - and have learned a lot from Mumsnet about the 'hidden curriculum'. So I try to apply what I've learnt about 'messages' to pupils in the class. Same for DS - and I've hoped he has learnt a few things.

I do remember as a full time teacher some appalling attitudes from some parents about this - more focus on religion - when we were taking the children to a Mosque and a Gurdrwara in Bradford. Some did not want their children to see 'coloured' people.

You can see where children learn / inherit their attitudes from.

I'm interpreting the "cisgender" as pretty much alongside the sexism - as in people are socialised (do I need to type SOCIALISED?) to accept gender sterotypes and be wary of those who don't. As much as I know it is not possible to change sex, I don't think I can disagree with that.

Though I would argue that as well as both men and women are socialised to be sexist, and all sexualities are socialised to prioritise heterosexuality - transgender people surely cannot escape the socialisation that their gender expression is "wrong", and surely internalise this in the same way as LGB do?

Cis is offensive.

Not disagreeing with that! Just explaining what I think Munroe meant by its inclusion :)

But Bergdorf didn't say that men AND women were socialised to be sexist. Only men. Bergdorf was born male. Socialised to be sexist. Bergdof stated women were socialised to be submissive (whatever that means - still don't understand).

Does this mean that Bergdorf has cis privilege inherent in their socialisation?

I get totally the frustration regarding race. I do see black Europeans as Europeans. They speak French, English, German, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Dutch, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish etc; They were born and raised as Europeans. Europe doesn't equal to white. No way. It's a multi cultural, multi racial society. And one of the best.

I know lots of people who will support Brazil, Argentina in the World Cup and they are white English. Colin Jackson is as Welsh as can be. Shirley Bassey too.

Muslim/Islam is a religion, not a race.

Does this mean that Bergdorf has cis privilege inherent in their socialisation

Isn't that the same as internalised mysogyny? Internalised homophobia?

The idea that people are exposed to messages about a group and they can internalise that negative message - even if they are a member of that group.

So they learn all the negative messages society says about being 'trans' and that conflicts with themselves?

www.rainbow-project.org/internalised-homophobia

Isn't it 101 of feminism that women are socialised to behave in more submissive ways and boys to behave in dominant ways?

An obvious example being boys taking up most of the space in the school playground playing football while girls are left with small amounts of space. Hopefully this has now changed with playground lay outs.

Boys wear baggy clothes that make them look physically larger than they actually are - a display of dominance. This has actually got worse since I was a kid and boys and girls wore clothes that fit their body size

Boys speak more in classrooms, while girls speak less, and teachers spend more time responding to boys. There have been various studies on this.

In media girls are shown less frequently as protagonists, and submit to more powerful characters.

Munroe made a comment on their fb page. Word got out. BAME people or most, understood what they meant. Everyone else didn't and went on the defence.
How come half the group understood what it was about and those it was about didn't? (I am not saying you personally)

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. I also think in short fb post you can't include every each detail in simple snapshots of your thoughts. What amazed me is how most people are so oblivious to the whole thing.

Another thing that came out of this is the power of white women. The ability to boycott because they can. Which has always happened and has been the case.

I don't think it's the same, orlantina. I occupy a different space in the world of sexism than I do of racism. What would you do? That is why you have to think before you post the comment below. It's more complicated than that.
Plus, I'm uncomfortable about the beauty industry generally and a person born male thinking that 'diversity' in this industry is somehow liberating for women generally.
Just remember that the space you have mentioned is not something that is made for black women and POC in general. If it you take munroe out of the equation, what you said is still problematic in understanding beauty even though the reason for makeup in both groups is the same. Think of it in reverse. The space you want to occupy is where black women are at. Make up offers beauty and fragility and that is something that's not afforded black women especially. Not because black women don't wear makeup, but what it means for white women who does. Mainly, because of society's set beauty standard. So a black woman being in an ad is breaking beauty barriers, not because they are allowed to be in it down to equality, but also, saying that you can be black and beautiful. (Changing the definition of beauty, not being called drag queens or refused because you lack that fragility needed because you look muscling and manly. Not my words but excuses that has always been given as examples of why black women can't front beauty campaigns) Our standard can be here, so is yours. For black children to know that the space of beauty is not only for white women. (As long as white women don't abandon brands like they always do because a black Person being the face of it. Which happens a lot. L'Oréal knows this and it's has been proven time and time again. So maybe, having controversial face would have made it worse).

No quencher. Words have meanings.

"Racial violence" has a meaning.

"ALL white people" has a meaning.

The split in understanding isn't along ethnic lines (and don't forget that's not a clear split anyway). It's between people who think it's reasonable and truthful to assert that all white people perpetrate racial violence and those who think that isn't reasonable and truthful.

(Which is a shame actually. If she confined herself to accurate communication, she could have said some useful things about societal racism and the historic foundations of power.)

I am going to identify as a trans black now. This mean I am hereby absolved of any white crimes that my tattie howker ancestors committed

Bergdof stated women were socialised to be submissive (whatever that means - still don't understand). Thats is why I said you should look at what it means to be a lady or proper woman (whatever that Means) and what it entails. Also, what it equates to being one. And what names are given to women who break that mould. And why men have to be the protector and provider, why you have princes that waits around to be saved. (Excluding Elsa or brave and the newer ones like moana princes and the frog just in case you have that as come back and hopefully you know the reason for that, too)
Why do you think man-spreading is a thing? I could go on.

I know lots of people who will support Brazil, Argentina in the World Cup and they are white English. Do you know what you are talking about? How does this relate? I used to support France in World Cup football but i don't have French friends or relatives. I thought I liked them then and that was that. 2004 I think. I know I am not going to be called French for that. Unless I got this bit wrong.
Colin Jackson is as Welsh as can be. Shirley Bassey too. Of cause they are. But If that was not really a problem, why do you think people complain about being asked "where they are really, really from". Do actually understand what they are trying to say to the person who might be third or fourth generation Brit or European or further back?
Some one who might have never been made to fill this is their home!

@SerfTerf I have not come across a publication which it's target audience has been black which hasn't agreed with munroe. I would love to but haven't. Not even the people I follow on my twitter feed who are mostly bloggers and vlogers when it comes to race. Every one of them seem to have understood it from the beginning. I doubt any of them would have used "violence" but everyone knows the violence that went into slavery and after the abolition. Police brutality and the kkk can still be described in the same manor. It depends how you look at it. What they also referred to was terrorism, war in Iraq for example could be explained in the same way and that is a snippet of what the west does. The violence was a given. I understood that.

I am going to identify as a trans black now. This mean I am hereby absolved of any white crimes that my tattie howker ancestors committed I shall do the same. This time be the opposite, trans and white male. Let's see where that gets me. All that patriarchy power to uphold. What will I do with all that power?
By the way, you have more of chance than I could ever. It's the only way Rachel d got away with it. (One drop blood rule). What failed her was cockiness.

quencher, you're conflating me with another poster. I said the piece about occupying a different space, but not the piece about being uncomfortable with the beauty industry.

My "but what can I do", wasn't a request for instruction. It was a sigh of helplessness, because I can't think what I can do that I don't do already - be aware of my subconscious biases, try to over come them, and listen when people tell me what their experience of the world is, and how it differs from mine.

And I am sorry, but I just can't understand the rest of your post. I get the part that beauty and fashion is frequently racist. But then I got lost.

I doubt any of them would have used "violence" but everyone knows the violence that went into slavery and after the abolition. Police brutality and the kkk can still be described in the same manor. It depends how you look at it. What they also referred to was terrorism, war in Iraq for example could be explained in the same way and that is a snippet of what the west does. The violence was a given. I understood that.

We're all aware of KKK, police brutality etc.

Where she lost sympathy (and all appearance of good sense) was conflating "the west" with "ALL white people".

As a person of mixed heritage, it is in fact a striking expression of self hate as well as being clearly factually inaccurate and inflammatory.

And also, in terms of getting it or not getting it, didn't the majority of posters say, when the actual content of what Bergdorf said was posted: "Ah. Now I see what Bergdorf was saying, that's much clearer and there's not much to argue with there". It was much less inflammatory.

And I am sorry, but I just can't understand the rest of your post. I get the part that beauty and fashion is frequently racist. But then I got lost

Me too. And it was me that made this comment. It almost seems as if you (quencher) are arguing for a part of what I see as our (white womens ) oppression. Having said that, there has never been even a tiny part of the so-called white standard of beauty that fits me. It does not fit most white or black women. In fact I'd argue the beauty industry is part of our shared oppression.

And also, in terms of getting it or not getting it, didn't the majority of posters say, when the actual content of what Bergdorf said was posted...

I don't think the long post hoc explanation of what she meant is the actual content of what she posted.

I get asked Quencher you're not from this country are you as soon as I open my mouth - not all people do this. It's tiresome and wearisome.

I can only imagine the response from Jackson and Bassey if they were asked 'But where are you really from?'

France V Italy 2006. Torn between two lovers there. Happy with the result.

Well, the clarification, then. The contextualisation.

I don't think Bergdorf should have been sacked, FWIW. There must surely have been something more to the story. Because as is, it makes no sense to me.

@SophoclesTheFox sorry! I should have stated that the two were different. I was using your quote to point at the other. I bought it was obvious, I guess not.
It was answering your "but what can I do" with a response quoted below. I should have been clear.

@SerfTerf
The people who agreed from the beginning on this post knew what that post meant. When munroe tried to explain what it meant, most people on here said she should have said that in the first place. She is doing damage control. But the fact is she wasn't. a lot of people also thought there must have been something more to it. (Not that we know of yet)
What she said first time is still what was explained further in the post from yesterday. I also, think the the word violence seems to be conflated with those in common usage within the trans community. The time line for when they wrote it matters too.

Having said that, there has never been even a tiny part of the so-called white standard of beauty that fits me. It does not fit most white or black women. In fact I'd argue the beauty industry is part of our shared oppression. True! but it would be an injustice to conflate the two because they mean different things. Even though the very thing Is a form of oppression with similar aim. For black women it's liberating as long as black beauty is sold for what it is not what is set for white standard. As in, you have to look white, be white, to be considered. I understand that white people have beauty standards they have to meet too and it's almost impossible for them.
But the fact is, you are already white. For a black woman, before competing with beauty you have to compete with skin colour and race before you can enter the general beauty contest. (I don't know if I am still making sense) colour dictating beauty before anything else for black women.

The whole point of argument is, mine is to fit you (your race) and yours is to fit the set beauty standard. Which makes it impossible for black person because they can never be white. It does not matter how many ways of assimilation black women try it can never erase race and how they are seen. (which people now have started calling it appropriation without understanding the context). Some people can become ambiguous of cause. But it's only to the few and the media can put up with them and the people can give them a pass.

And munroe wearing braids in an ad like that is huge fashion statement. Even Beyoncé didn't get to do. I hadn't even thought of it until now.

The whole point of argument is, mine is to fit you (your race) and yours is to fit the set beauty standard. Which makes it impossible for black person because they can never be white.

That's a really interesting point. Genuine food for thought, thank you.