Appointing yourself to decide how people discuss inequality

[lisamuggeridge]

So with austerity, there was political consensus, rule of law was undermined for women and there wasnt a peep. In that time I also learned that in the UK very posh people, some of the most privileged eole in the country., have been 'identifying as feminist' or the left and thought that meant they were the peole who decided if anyone was allowed to discuss it. So quite a lot of people are dead and we still didnt discuss it. But there was a movement about those systems, and only a coule of months after the GRA deadline we appear to be having the same conversatoin.

Can someone explain how you qualify to be in this central authority who decides how people can discuss inequality and powerlessness? COs am quite sure it makes no sense for the entry to that to be an elite university, and being part of hte social network around the left.

Is there a way to bypass this cos I havent found it, and have never had any confirmation that this is an officially recognised layer in our democracy. So confused. I hd heard something about women standing u and being heard but here we are again..

The implications of feminism as a gatekeeper, which is what we are discussing, a gatekeeper to women discussing inequality are profound, when that gatekeeper is almost uniformly extremely privileged there would seem to be issues here about power we are not discussing when we ask how far Posie Parker should be wedged under buses.

Itssadsometimes
HOw can women in the UK today, hit by austerity, challenge and organise to challenge it if when they do they can only get as far as a layer of elite women saying they can only discuss it in a way they say is acceptable? How can women challenge disenfranchisement, state abuse, blindness to the laws they need to protect them? How can a mother with children without those elite connections do that?

Well it’s a big “if” isn’t it?

Is that the case? Why do you thin’ so?

The rest of what you say is an upside-down way of saying that women in need will be worse off if a self-appointment group decides which concerns they have are worthy of discussion and has the power to exclude any questions that don’t fit a particular brief.

So the interesting bit for me is, is there such a self appointed group?
Or are there just a bunch of people disapproving of Posy.

If it's only acceptable to speak about inequality when you are in possession of a certain level of cultural and social capital and can utilise the relevant codes of speech and behaviour to do it, the chances are that you're speaking over people a lot more unequal than you.

......if there is such a group doing such a thing then that is A Bad Thing I guess..... but that’s kind of obvious....

''
Is that the case? Why do you thin’ so?

Beacuse it just happened and a year into self id, which is about marginalisation and violence to women and women excluded from all spheres, the movement that resulted has entirely recreated existing social and political hierarchies. That was kind of quick and now we have tribalism forming with conflict between those tribes, but no questioning of how this happened or what the implications are. So am asking. If it took one year for a movement abot self id, invisibility of safeguarding and way marginalistion creates violence for the poorest women, to reproduce that political and social structure.

Am asking what the implications are, if that happens even with a movement about these systems and these women.

(just for the record, I thought it might because of the nature of the systems at stake, and have been interested althoug bruised by the process, so I am asking about the implications of that).

Or are there just a bunch of people disapproving of Posy.

It's not about Posie. Lisa has been making this point since 2010, long before anyone heard of Posie. Posie is just an exemplar of Lisa's long held view.

This is the only place wher3 all women whatever level,of education can speak

And listened to

Lisa sometimes I can’t read your posts cos they don’t have spaces
Can u do spaces because I like reading your posts but it can be just a wall of text sometimes

“ it's only acceptable to speak about inequality when you are in possession of a certain level of cultural and social capital and can utilise the relevant codes of speech and behaviour to do it, the chances are that you're speaking over people a lot more unequal than you.”

Thank you. Well, yes. Doesn’t that happen with everything though? You only have to spend time in a primary school to see that. Everyone wants the I Daniel Blakes. Nobody wants the I Tonyas because they are the wrong sort of poor.
Is Lisa saying that people should be more self aware? Or that there is a well formed power structure something to d9 with Corbyn?

I think she's saying that political and social movements develop hierarchies which end up gatekeeping the very people who need them most out of having voice or influence.

Bit like Victorians "improving the poor".

But I'm sure Lisa will correct me if I've got it wrong!

Thank you Lang.

I appreciate your explanation.

My answer to Lisa is “no shit Sherlock”.

''Thank you. Well, yes. Doesn’t that happen with everything though?''

It definitely does happen with EVERYTHING, which is why we have people in the systems the self id crisis discussed who are trained to reflect on the power they have and their identity, and to know that that will happen. That knowledge exists in the systems the self id movement was about, and yet the social movement about those actual systems that knowledge is absent.

THis is even though the womans place meeting at the House of Lords discussed precisely the roots of that, and even though the success of self id movement was in women standing up and demonstrating what is knwn in those systems.

When posh people close out everyone else in a profession, say guardian journalist, professional whatever, it freezes people out of a career- when that happens with protest it freezes people out of democracy itself and in the case of these systems it freezes them out of democracy when there is a good chance they are being abused by the state, and being exposed to abuse by others because of the failure to recognise those laws. When psh people colonise a profession it pushes poorer people out of thet profession, when protest itself is that, it not only pushes people out of democracy but holds them down while the state abuses them and the state holding them down allows others to do it. So its quite a lot more serious. Especially after eight years of austerity impacting women in silence.

I note that both sides of this movement are discussing that- but what has emerged as a consequence is this. One side of the movement you can discuss it i you dont discuss the role of elite cultures around faux socialism and media feminism and you dont discuss the role of trade unions, the other side is clearly going to be about free speech which includes the free speech of people who may want to harm those women.

Ergo one year into a movement bout these systems we have tribalism forming which I would put money on working to entirely prevent discussion of those systems.

Elite social closure of journalism, law, academia provides many barriers, but when that is extended to protest it means movements addressing marginalisation actively working to create it.

I am asking the implications of that happening here, of the tribalism forming and asking what specifically is implied by the assertion that Posie is to be wedged under a bus cos she is culturally and politically wron to count as a woman challenging shit that is important to her. What are the implications for the women without Posies natural ahem resources.

This is the only place wher3 all women whatever level,of education can speak

A major, major advantage of the much-maligned Mumsnet, Dog, you are on the button.

Austerityand the decision to fuck over women with it was subject to political and public consensus, what are the implications of a movement where you cant discuss that because it injures the identity the women controlling existing political resources?

''A major, major advantage of the much-maligned Mumsnet, Dog, you are on the button''

Yup. It is. Which is why htey all go out of their way to ridicule or attack it as just middle class mums.

Ah sorry...

“the movement that resulted has entirely recreated existing social and political hierarchies.”.
You mean The feminist movement? Has it?

If so, People and power just always go that way don’t they?
That’s why mumsnet is so fun -it’s much harder to make everything agree one agenda.

''If so, People and power just always go that way don’t they?''

Historically yes, which has meant quite bloody revolutions and some really nasty shit. In the UK at present we have a collapsing welfare system, collapsing local authorities and women are caught in the middle of it in silence after eight years of the same- so what do those women do about that if when they organise they have to accept this happens?

The implications of that are quite serious.

Well, like I said at the beginning, “I don’t “see” an elite because for me feminism is this board. I have no idea who on it thinks they are important, etc.”

What do you think Lisa?

I think it seems like an impermeable wall and like you say you have to expect that. What the implications of that are for the women at the centre of this and those systems i dont know. Cos when there was no opposition to austerity, the same dysfunction emerged through the trans rights shit, as it was likely to do, and even then the moevment concerning it demonstrated that.

Its already understood that this happens, am just wondering what the implications are of an elite culture who entirely identify as tht barrier and appear to function so well as that barrier that it cant be crossed and wont be even with movements about these systems and laws. I dont so much think anything as quietly despair. Occasionally not quietly.

So, for example, I appointed myself to discuss inequality by answering this thread.

Whereas in real life I stick to helping in one narrow area because I’ve lived it and I will never really leave it.
Following this board helps me in my real life work. I tap into its power then go back to doing the small thing I do.
Works for me.

Collapsing local authorites

Where?

Collapsing welfare state. This does not read like "collapsing".

Social security spending in the United Kingdom and the welfare cap
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.

£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.

Expenditure is forecast to fall from 10.7% of GDP and 27.7% of the total amount the government spends in 2017 to 2018 to 10.4% of GDP and 27.3% of all government spending this year.

Social security spending in Great Britain
Over 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners.

The government is forecast to spend £121 billion on pensioners and £94 billion on working age people and children this year. In 2017 to 2018 £121 billion was spent on pensioners and £96 billion was spent on working age people and children.

The largest benefit is the State Pension at £96.7 billion in 2018 to 2019, a rise of £1.2 billion in real terms since last year. It is paid to 12.7 million people.

£69.2 billion is forecast to be spent on income-related benefits and personal tax credits, compared wth £71.8 billion in real terms since 2017 to 2018.

£52.7 billion is forecast to be spent to support disabled people and people with health conditions, compared with £53.1 billion in real terms in 2017 to 2018. The fall is partly the result of the devolution of Carer’s Allowance expenditure in Scotland to the Scottish Government in September 2018.

Don’t despair Lisa.

....sometimes it’s harder when you know too much/know too many people personally.

Take heart from the fact that there are thousands of us discussing this topic and doing small things oblivious to the hierarchies that you describe.

Placematking - back soon - totally agree Lisa - what I can never understand about people in these positions is they be et enable those advert affected to have a voice - they have to be thay voice even though they haven’t lived the austerity experience - and in that expectation that they are the voice, they silence mothers and join in re-punishing them for leaving abuse/ for being abused / for being poor and daring to demand a say

For November 2018, average total pay (including bonuses), before tax and other deductions from pay, for employees in Great Britain was:

£527 per week in nominal terms, up from £510 per week for a year earlier

£495 per week in constant 2015 prices, up from £490 per week for a year earlier, but £30 lower than the pre-downturn peak of £525 per week for February 2008

The benefit cap is a British Coalition government policy that caps the amount in state benefits that an individual household can claim per year. The benefit cap was introduced at £26,000 per year (£500 per week) which was the average income of a family in the UK.

So the collapsing welfare state pays a household the same as the national average income. How is that "collapsing?"

I’m loving that Trousering is off-message :)
Again, that’s why this is the symposium.