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

The March of Wokeism, Trevor Phillips in The Times

87 replies

Igneococcus · 07/11/2020 07:09

Have not read it fully yet but Trevor Phillips is always worth reading:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dfbee358-2045-11eb-8696-f5d5fcef88fd?shareToken=be75bc761cb78af2c93e38c62b7a0589

OP posts:
NeurotrashWarrior · 09/11/2020 12:49

I wonder if the cognitive dissonance the humanists suffer from is finally being addressed?

laudemio · 09/11/2020 12:50

I bloody love Trevor Phillips.

NecessaryScene1 · 09/11/2020 13:32

@BolloxtoGender hmmm.. you sure about that? (Critical Sex Theorists)

No, so I went back and inserted the word "significant" to try to give myself some leeway before posting. Wink

NecessaryScene1 · 09/11/2020 13:40

I agree with all that. But while it may be possible to eradicate racism entirely while sexism is only ever held at bay, within a culture, at a point in time, effective tactics to challenge and eradicate racism and effective tactics to challenge and hold at bay sexism have enough in common to make the comparison valid.

I think so, there's a lot of overlap but only at a current point for current tactics, and some general aspects of discrimination law. Where it breaks down, I think, is what the end goal should be.

I think "race blindness" is a realistic goal for society and law. Skin colour could be as insignificant as hair colour.

I do not think "sex blindness" is a realistic goal for society and law. Sex cannot be as insignificant as hair colour.

It's interesting that the Woke take the contrary position on both. Does the totalitarianism come as a consequence of taking a position against nature, or is the position against nature part of just being totalitarian? (You assert 2+2=5 to demonstrate your power over those who agree).

queenofknives · 09/11/2020 14:10

I think "race blindness" is a realistic goal for society and law. Skin colour could be as insignificant as hair colour.

I do not think "sex blindness" is a realistic goal for society and law. Sex cannot be as insignificant as hair colour.

I completely agree with this. One of the problems with CRT is its insistence on 'racialising' every situation. As a pp here said, they want to 'do the work' of uncovering their racism. I have to wonder what is good or useful about that? Yes, definitely it's good to realise if you are being racist in your words or behaviour. But I don't think this forensic microscope on every possible thought or interaction to detect its inherent racism is healthy at all. Most people don't want to be made conscious of their skin colour in every interaction in life, or to feel the people around them are highly conscious of their skin colour. When it's relevant and significant then it should be addressed - but most of the time it isn't, and shouldn't be. Trying to make people feel MORE conscious of the superficial differences between us seems to be to be very divisive.

I agree it's very interesting how the woke have got race and sex the wrong way around!

Blibbyblobby · 11/11/2020 09:22

@NecessaryScene1

Please forgive me @ ing you, but I was thinking some more about this:

But the sexual dimorphism of our species means that women, by virtue of lesser strength, greater sexual vulnerability, and their role in procreation, will always be structurally oppressed. It requires civilisation (law and order), technology (birth control, abortions) and cultural will to maintain their rights as equal people. Women's physical relationship to men can never become historical, barring some sci-fi transhumanism fantasy. It is always in danger of becoming relevant again, if civilisation or access to technology is lost.

Does this mean that females can only ever be free of male oppression by the forbearance of a critical mass of males? In other words, it's not something we can ever do or maintain for ourselves?

This isn't a goady question. I have a depressing feeling that the answer is yes, but I've never seen it articulated so baldly.

(Actually that's not true, I have seen it articulated baldly but only ever as an antiargument to Femisim)

NecessaryScene1 · 11/11/2020 11:02

This isn't a goady question. I have a depressing feeling that the answer is yes, but I've never seen it articulated so baldly.

I think the answer is yes, but it's part of a wider concept. Civilisation as a whole requires the forbearance of a critical mass of all people.

It doesn't take much for there to be looting in the streets, etc.

If civilisation breaks down sufficiently, then women will be particularly hit as part of that. All people will be vulnerable to assault, robbery, murder, and some people will be weaker and more vulnerable than others, but women as a class have some particular extra dangers.

It's hard to imagine a civilisation breakdown that somehow spares women from those extra dangers - murder and robbery but no rape. A sort of "gentlemanly" breakdown with agreement "but don't mess with the women"? At best you might get that a sort of women-as-property position...

Blibbyblobby · 11/11/2020 12:46

Yes, definitely agree that female freedom as a right, like all rights is dependent on civilisation. I guess I was thinking from the side, in that within a civilisation the males can still decide unilaterally that females don't have rights and force that upon us. In essence we rely on the goodwill of our structural oppressors not to oppress. And what I'm struggling with right now is does that mean there is always going to be an element of "egg-walking" to female freedom, and whether that can ever be more than illusionary freedom.

Sadly, plenty of real-world examples of societies where women have protection but only as property, or civilisation without rights.

NecessaryScene1 · 12/11/2020 09:27

I'm always intensely conscious that all our freedoms are illusionary.

Which is why Woke utterly terrifies me, being a regression to ancient patterns, ripping up the enlightenment and liberal principles we rely on for freedom.

I'd say that female freedom is a test for your society's moral framework. If the end result of your "civilisation" does not give women rights, then it's not a true civilisation.

Lots of current stuff is part of the same thing - taking our current position (of society as a whole, or women) for granted, and thinking that you can just tear it all up and somehow it stands up without the foundations... No recognition of what it took to get here, and where else we could end up :(

Goosefoot · 12/11/2020 15:49

@queenofknives

Fantastic article. I especially liked this very clear point:

This perfectly sums up the gap between the woke self-image and reality. The woke affect to care for the excluded, yet cannot find room for talented people of colour in their own ranks. They present themselves as passionate campaigners for justice, yet they are ready to yield to the whims of the mob and dole out summary retribution to anyone deemed a heretic. They claim to be the allies of the oppressed, yet have no time to listen to their real priorities. They purport to seek greater diversity, yet require all women or all ethnic minorities to share their view or be branded quislings.

Sex — “the trans debate” — remains a hot issue but race was the principal battleground
I think this is true in a sense, in that race is a key battleground because it also affects men. Sex has not been the principal battleground if you are male and not trans. But I think that he - like so many of the men talking about this stuff - are still failing to see how fundamental the trans issue has been and continues to be - and how the kind of campaigning done by TRAs (#nodebate) has created actual institutional and pseudo-legal inroads into society at the deepest levels, which other wokery are now obviously taking advantage of, but which have been affecting everyone's lives for a long time now. However, he does at least, not quibble over the key point wrt to sex/gender.

I took him to mean that CRT is in many ways a foundational example, and also was instrumental in the development of attaching CT to identity groups.

I think this may be part of the reason that TRAs are always trying to attach themselves to other causes - feminism, or gay rights, but especially, race issues. The civil rights movements stands as something that mainstream westerners see as having been just and positive and also very strategically successful. And while it was not really fought on the basis of identity politics, CRT advocates have been remarkably effective in claiming it was, and that opposition to CRT is racist.

Goosefoot · 12/11/2020 15:54

@HecatesCats

'Privilege' is used in numerous contexts to control speech. "Check your privilege" could now be used by white male born person who 'identified' as female, even if they work for a ftse 100 company, against a working class lesbian on benefits as long as that woman was denoted as 'cis'. It's unhelpful to say the least.
Yes, though I would say it's no better if the working class lesbian says it against the white male, if it is a power play and not reflecting reality.

How power is being used can be useful to note, as Phillips has done here in relation to the people he is describing as being performative but not effective.

But we can't decide what is right and true based simply on listening to the most oppressed, however we define that. That's an error that can lead to some serious mistakes, and creates all kinds of unhealthy power dynamics in itself.

Goosefoot · 12/11/2020 16:28

makes me uneasy because while as a white person I don't experience racism in any meaningful way, as a woman I do experience sexism and it IS hard-baked into society. That does not mean it can't be challenged and eventually defeated, but it's not a trivial thing to achieve and it does demand society changes.

You might look at some of the things that John McWhorter has said or written about this. He doesn't dismiss racism, but he is pretty clear that he thinks that even in the US, the idea that it is a society pervaded by racism is overblown. And Adolph Reed, on the left, (McWhorter is a classical liberal) says something similar.

*it's popular among white middle class kids because it is just a power grab by the middle classes threatened by the expansion of higher education. The main reason working class kids drop out of uni is social exclusion so if you set up the culture to be based around complex, ever changing beliefs which often go directly against clearly observable reality then you are going to exclude those with more varied points of view, experiences or who simply haven't been trained in politeness and telling PC white lies from childhood.

I'm afraid I agree with this completely.*

Reed is also interesting on this in terms of the black leaders of the identity politics crowd who are the supposed leaders in the community - he says that they represent the middle managerial class of black Americans who emerged after the civil rights movement and moved into the civil service, politics, policing, and notably, advocacy. Their interests, according to Reed, very quickly had more in common with the white middle classes, and they were advantaged by being able to speak on behalf of their communities on policy issues, and indeed by the creation of a whole career arc based on advocacy.

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