Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
justanothernameagain · 05/09/2017 08:42

CoteDAzur did you read the original Facebook post? How did you do that? It's been deleted.

justanothernameagain · 05/09/2017 08:45

Cote Monroe has made it clear the comments are about structural racism.

If you have an issue with Monroe taking about white people as a class - are you happy with people saying "not all men?"

CoteDAzur · 05/09/2017 09:19

Yes, that's how Munroe tried to worm their way out once the backlash became clear.

What Munroe said however was "yes, ALL white people" which doesn't leave room for ambiguity.

justanothernameagain · 05/09/2017 09:30

CoteDAzur her comments have been taken out of context of a long rant about racism by the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail picked the most inflammatory bits. It's totally unfair to take then out of context.

I'm sorry but the day I start taking the Daily Mail's commentary as the truth I might as well give up trying to be an intelligent compassionate human being.

VERY telling how you see a person who' s had the Daily Mail do a hatchet job on their words, then been silenced by FB, as trying to "worm their way out of it" when trying to explain the context of what they said.

As the Mail only printed a bit and as Facebook deleted the rest we do need to look to Monroe to find out what she meant. Or are you really happy to go on the word of the Fail?

Check your bias.

Monroe is trying to highlight some issues that are massively important today. Structural racism is an issue.

Telling that several people on this thread thought that for all white people to be implicated in racism we must be talking about slavery. No awareness of current world events in the context of racism.

But no, instead of discussing these important issues let's dismiss them because she's trans?!

Seriously, WTF?!

justanothernameagain · 05/09/2017 09:32

CoteDAzur what do you think Monroe means when she said ALL white people?

Do you think she means every white person she meets (including her mum) have consciously held racist views?

Or do you think she was taking about the bigger picture?

justanothernameagain · 05/09/2017 13:58

Does anyone accept that now you've heard more from Monroe, you understand better what she's on about and that the Mail were in fact shit stirring?

AssassinatedBeauty · 05/09/2017 14:09

Of course the DM were shit stirring, gleefully no doubt.

I understand what Munroe says they intended by what they wrote in full (which has since disappeared so can't be verified). It's a very clumsy phrase to say that all white people, yes all of them, commit racial violence. Even though that's been taken out of context and cherry-picked, it's very easy to take that at face value and most people won't have an understanding of the class analysis (? is that the right term) that Munroe was attempting. It was probably unwise to phrase it that way, but it was probably written in haste and not reviewed before posting.

L'Oreal are concerned only about sales and bad publicity - even with a more detailed explanation, many people are going to either deliberately or unthinkingly misunderstand what was said. It will alienate the main market that L'Oreal sell to, so I can see why they have sacked Munroe.

McTufty · 05/09/2017 15:38

Does anyone accept that now you've heard more from Monroe, you understand better what she's on about and that the Mail were in fact shit stirring?

I always knew what she was on about. I thought, and still think, that the words she used initially were inflammatory and unacceptable. It isn't good enough to say that the base point is a good one and therefore it is ok to phrase it however nastily you like.

I started a thread on this in chat a few days ago and said then that it was clearly a Daily Mail hatchet job, but that also doesn't excuse her for what she said.

SerfTerf · 05/09/2017 16:02

Plus one to @mctufty's post.

justanothernameagain · 05/09/2017 16:43

So next time someone says "not all men" we're going to say that's fine, are we?

SerfTerf · 05/09/2017 16:46

It's not difficult to distinguish between the patriarchy and "ALL men". Nor between western society and "ALL white people".

I'm confused about what you're struggling with just.

bambambini · 05/09/2017 16:57

I watched Monroe hold their own and some with Peirs Morgan. I don't particularly have a problem with what they said. I do still think they only got the job because they were trans.

McTufty · 05/09/2017 16:57

Actually yes, if I heard someone say "men, yes ALL men are guilty of sexual violence" I would totally call them out on it.

I actually think it should be possible to discuss structural disadvantage, whether race or sex, without attacking all individuals who share that characteristic.

WaitrosePigeon · 06/09/2017 09:17

This morning I was called a 'pink' and 'white dumbass' Shock

scottishdiem · 06/09/2017 09:24

White people telling black people what racism is and how to define it is like men telling women what sexism is and how to define it. Seems the wrong way round to me but since we are conditioned to accept the views of white men then maybe thats why.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 06/09/2017 10:16

I have no problem with comments to the effect that "all white people are racist" or that entrenched systemic racism exists.

However, for me, the OP's point that "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..." also resonates with me, especially when said MtT is partaking in an industry that promotes sexism and other evidence on the internet suggest that they live a very 'gendered', sexist and fetishistic idea of what they think a woman is - look up Pussy Palace, Khuntriarchy and the other events they have been engaged in. For me, the difference between Bergdorf and Yardley is that Yardley speaks out against sexism, Bergdorf tends towards promoting it.

Todayissunny · 06/09/2017 12:40

I think she worded what she mean really, really badly.... and understand that offence has been taken.

I do wonder how l'oreal expects to promote products targeted at women using a man. I can't think of a single example where a woman has been used in the same way to promote products for men or that it would be in considered that it could be a successful marketing strategy. Personally it puts me off buying l'oreal products even more if the women's products are designed for men's skin.

CoteDAzur · 06/09/2017 13:05

"CoteDAzur her comments have been taken out of context of a long rant about racism by the Daily Mail."

I don't read the Daily Fail, never have.

I have read Munroe's comments including the so-called context and Munroe still says that ALL white people are not just racist but also guilty of racial violence. ALL. Racial VIOLENCE.

Sorry but you are not glossing that over by claiming that there is a "context" that excuses this outrageous insult.

JigglyTuff · 07/09/2017 16:38

I think Brendan O'Neill is a twat but this is a good article: www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/this-isnt-anti-racism-its-middle-class-misanthropy/

I particularly like this bit:
"Because they are chasing victimhood, not progress; theirs is a pursuit for the moral currency of suffering, not for the political goal of equality or autonomy; this is competitive victimhood, not radical idealism, and therefore its constant and foul instinct is division and distinction. The new identitarians must continually distinguish their experience against others ... because their aim is the narcissistic one of self-victimisation rather than the social one of an end to class and social division."

That right there is my whole problem with identity politics.

SomethingOnce · 07/09/2017 22:14

Mine too.

Identity politics is so far removed from the old-fashioned left-wing politics with which I was brought up; honestly, I feel I'm losing faith with the whole thing and I don't think I'm alone in that. If the aim is no longer, as O'Neill puts it, "an end to class and social division" then I won't devote energy to the pointless fight for a different set of divisions.

quencher · 07/09/2017 22:36

@JigglyTuff
tried reading that article and it still misses the point. I am glad black people have social media now. There is no way white people will shut black people and other minorities up.
If it's about victimhood then so be it. The false excuse people are giving themselves now to assume we are all equal is absurd.

Something has gone horribly wrong with the once noble, optimistic, humanist goal of anti-racism. Not true. After trump was elected. A study was done to look at how different groups felt about the future. Black people where the most optimistic and the least where white people. I can see why that is and right now I don't actually care. For every step black people gain, it's expected that some people will feel Infringed upon. That's their problem, not ours. If we speak up and it hits a nerve, that's their their problem and not ours. I hope more black people speak up.

against those who would have us believe that blacks and whites were fundamentally different and should therefore distrust each other....
side eye with a laugh 😂 . It's always been the case. It's nothing new. It won't be solved unless the underlying issues are dealt with and that is not happening. If black people have always been uneasy and uncomfortable, from not being included in white spaces, from science trying to say black people where different, to always being made to feel like an outsider. Well, this is the problem with whitesplaning, the assumption that we have always been happy and everything is ok because of their little bubble. That quote is hilarious in its own right. The thread about where do ethnic minorities holiday in the uk would give a different answer to this. I guess everyone is tolerant, right? Well, that's the whole point. Tolerant!

Their adoption of the depressing ‘stay in your lane’ ideology, where any white who gets too into anti-racism can expect to be accused of ‘whitesplaining’ how to tackle privilege, reveals their instinct for segregation, of the moral if not physical variety. Tell a woman this on the feminist board and lets see the response.
it was about knowing and understanding rather than talking bollocks like the article just did.
It's not just about whitesplaning now is it? Trying to tell someone how they feel and how they should solve their issue is stupid and racist at best. If it's not privilege, those people who need your help would not be asking for your voice instead of theirs! It then turns into "White saviour complex"

She says ‘you need to recognise that there is such a thing as white privilege and you can be homeless and still have white privilege, because you can still have a better chance of getting out of homelessness than a person of colour in the same position’. Isn’t there something ugly, not to mention gauche, about a solidly middle-class, well-connected media darling telling the starving, bedraggled man under a bridge that he’s privileged? Scratch that: this isn’t ugly, it’s reprehensible. Mmm🤔 I have come cross a study before where it said that, if you were a homeless white person, you were more likely to be given money compared to a black homeless person. (I think the research was done in America.) you would think all homeless people are equal.

Don't even get me started on begpacking along side homeless people in poorer countries in Asia. Those who beg to survive in those places compared to travellers. Actually, that article is pissing me off even more because people are willing being obtuse.

JigglyTuff · 07/09/2017 23:01

@quencher - I don't think we're all equal at all. We live in a racist world. But it's a lot more complicated that Bergdorf and their supporters say.

I also really object to the the word violence being co-opted to mean 'something that hurt my feelings'.

As for the rest of your points, I will have to read the article again tomorrow because I really need some sleep. I'm interested in reading your analysis.

JigglyTuff · 07/09/2017 23:08

Sorry that sounded much more combative than intended! I'm just really tired but I would like to read the BON article again and then come back to your post if I may :)

quencher · 07/09/2017 23:41

@JigglyTuff don't worry about it. I haven't put much thought into that article either. It's the same things that has already been said here.

SylviaPoe · 07/09/2017 23:51

'If the aim is no longer, as O'Neill puts it, "an end to class and social division" then I won't devote energy to the pointless fight for a different set of divisions.'

You're not being asked to though. Bergdorf is just giving her opinion. You're not actually required to do anything whatsoever about that opinion.

But is it a valid use of anyone's time to critique what Bergdorf is saying?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread