Be Excellent To Each Other

The work of Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams

Feex

The referenced article links to a petition to prevent Germaine Greer from speaking after she made comments that were transphobic. The speech did in fact go ahead, though it appears that Myp's position is that she shouldn't have been permitted to. It's an interesting one, because GG is obviously a renowned feminist, and strong supporter of a known opressed 'minority' group - women. Transgender folks are of course way behind women in the establishment of support, rights, and their own agenda, which then I guess leads to the question of whether you play 'opression top trumps' - what takes priority, Germaine Greer's support for feminism or her dismissal of the transgender community?

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

'Oppression top trumps', or as it's better known, intersectionality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

True, but to defend radical Islam ahead of a feminist who has done a tremendous amount of work to improve the lives of women in the Middle East and across the world... that's a massive cognitive dissonance with you being a feminist.

Wow, what a straw man argument! I was not defending *radical* Islam at all. Did you even read the bit I quoted? She believes anyone who follows the Islam faith are 'kidding themselves' if they believe they can abide peacefully in a liberal society. I applaud her efforts from a feminist standpoint but that doesn't cancel out the Islamophobic bigotry she spouts. Just as I respect Dawkins as an evolutional biologist, but it doesn't mean he can get away with being misogynist or racist himself.

I prefer my name. Interesting read though.

So what's the answer - should Greer have been allowed to speak or not?

Without giving an opinion on the subject (I don't know enough about it), you've not quoted her there. You've quoted someone writing an article about her - that's not what she believes, that's what the author interprets what she believes. And reading that piece, the author isn't terribly impartial.

And if you read anything that she herself has written, it is very, very clear that she is talking about radical Islam, and not moderate Muslims.

But that would involve listening to the words of a minority; an Iranian woman who used to be a Muslim.

Hang on... I thought Myp liked to do that?

Well now you have all the tools at your disposal you tell me. Working out the axes of oppression will be a good exercise for you.

In all seriousness, I believe not. Nothing is stopping her hiring a venue next to the university and inviting those students that want to see her, so it's not a free speech issue - she would not have been silenced. If the government banned her from speaking then that is censorship and I'd take a different view. I would always support my minority and oppressed students in this case, after consultation with them if they'd prefer her not to speak, I would cancel it.

I listen to and read a lot of articles written by ex-Muslim women and most do not share her opinions.

Her opinions are, for the most part, that the oppression of women by Islamists is wrong, and that action needs to be taken to change this.

You must be reading some fucked up stuff that disagrees with that.

But either way, her opinion is without a doubt feminist, and her stand against radical Islam obviously a good cause. So let's no platform her!

You're way down the rabbit hole. I can only gather from your repeated mentions of his name that you dislike this woman because she got support from Dawkins.

I've already said she has done some good work, but she is not as good as you seem to think she is. Having support from Dawkins is not helpful, but I haven't based my decisions on that alone.

If you'd like to point me to some reading then I'd be more than happy to reassess. My viewpoints are pretty fluid and I'm always open to persuasion (title)

They're making me do work now, but I will get back to you.

The thing that annoyed me about all the brouhaha about Blurred Lines is that everyone slated Thicke for being a knobberoonie for having written such a song, yet they all shuffled their feet when it turned out it was Williams because we quite like him and no one likes a fuss.

So those that do are the oppressed minority of the opressed minority, but they're not as important as the opressed minority majority?

This shit is hard

In seriousness though, you're reading the opinions of the women that have chosen/dared to speak up, and that's not necessarily a good cross-section.

Not much you can do about that, of course. Beware sample bias, I guess.

I know you were joking, but it is very difficult indeed.

Robin Thicke's lyrics read like a rapist, in all honesty. I'm not sure which Williams song you're referring to.

They're Pharrell's lyrics (and music), though - that came out when the Gaye family took him to court (which was a fucking travesty, by the way, but that's nothing to do with this discussion). Thicke just sang it*.

And yes, they do.

[edit] And defended it, of course.

Ok that makes sense. I didn't see anyone quietly brushing it under the carpet at any point though. People I knew were fucking livid about it from start to finish.

Mainly with Robin Thicke, though, like Mali said. Pharrell didn't seem to get anywhere near the grief about it that he did.

I've only got anecdotal evidence for that, though.

Most annoying is that (lyrics excluded) it's a fucking good song!

People were livid, but Pharrell largely got a free pass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... -arts.html



Oh god now I'm conflicted

Not wanting to be willfully controversial or unpleasant, but reading back the last few pages I just pine for the "bad old days" when people could just say what they damn well liked and hang the consequences? For the average person (esp. if of a "certain age" like me), it's all just so ridiculously bewildering; you daren't say anything these days for fear of someone or other jumping on you, telling you you're a monster, you've caused such heinous offence or whatever.

My instinct is always to err heavily on the side of freedom of speech; I am not afraid of hearing what people have to say, even if I personally find it offensive and/or I disagree with it. It just seems incredibly patronising (almost McCarthyite) to say adult person X or adult population Y cannot even be exposed to a given opinion or worldview.

Speaking personally, the last thing I'd want to do is to genuinely upset anyone, especially any minority group with any history of persecution or whatever, and nor would I take issue with anyone who refused to share a platform with someone else (or another body/organisation) because they found their views grossly incompatible with their own. I hate bullies also. But to say views should be excluded from ever being aired by default and according to the law... nah, that just does not sit well with me I'm afraid.

In life, and especially online and at political discourse or whatever, gross offence is inevitable but wrapping people in cotton wool is not (IMO) the answer. We, as a collective, need to be a bit tougher and more grown up about it - myself included when it comes to talking about refugees and suchlike.

As a straight, white, cis, able-bodied male of course you do, as you are not oppressed in any real sense and I'm sure it's incredibly seductive to think back to a time when you could say anything to anyone and not be called out on it. Yes life can suck sometimes and this doesn't mean bad things can't happen to you, but no one can use language or actions to denigrate you in any meaningful fashion. Yes, white people can be poor and a black man can be President of the USA, but put two men together from the same social stratum with the same upbringing, money and education but make one of them black then on average he will earn less, be more likely to be stopped by the police, have less opportunity to go to good schools, etc, etc.

Much is made of political correctness, but if you think of PC as standing for "politeness and courtesy" instead, it makes much more sense. Removing language from your vocabulary that upsets and stigmatises minority groups takes time and effort to unlearn, but anything that is more inclusive is a good thing imo. Do you really want to return to less enlightened times when people could use terms like 'nigger', 'faggot' and 'spastic' without other people batting an eyelid? It's not that they were any less offensive back then than they are now, it's just that the oppressed feel more confident in speaking up against their oppressors.

Yeah, I think there's a difference between pointing out to someone who clearly meant no offence that something they said actually might upset someone or hearing the same thing and delightedly jumping up down pointing at them and ranting about how awful they are and how they don't understand anything about the world and how much more enlightened and better you are than them. NOT aimed at you myp but there's a fucking shitload of the latter goes on on twitter and the like.

Had to google "cis". Is that to avoid calling people "normal"?

Yes, because otherwise it implies being trans or non-binary is abnormal.

Absolutely. There's always a minority of activists of every stripe who tend towards aggression and confrontation. It doesn't necessarily make their cause any less important, however.

Normal - "conforming to the standard or the common type"

Yes, by all means quote dictionary definitions without taking into account the sociological meanings.

Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning "on this side of", which is an antonym for the Latin-derived prefix trans-, meaning "across from" or "on the other side of". This usage can be seen in the cis–trans distinction in chemistry, the cis–trans or complementation test in genetics, in Ciscaucasia (from the Russian perspective) and in the ancient Roman term Cisalpine Gaul (i.e., "Gaul on this side of the Alps"). In the case of gender, cis- is used to refer to the alignment of gender identity with assigned sex.

Are you both only trying to get myp's goat? Or do you both genuinely not see how someone who is vulnerable due to being in a often-persecuted minority -- say, someone who is transsexual -- might find it upsetting to be considered 'abnormal'?

But you know, it *is* "abnormal" (in the purest, correct, unloaded definition of the term) to be transexual? That's just a plain fact - it just IS - whether we like it or not. We should embrace facts and the truth, without fear or favour; for me, that's what this is all about, call a spade a spade. If people attach their own value judgements (or even petty bigotry) on such things then that's their problem, but throwing the baby (i.e. truth) out with the bathwater ain't the solution, and nor is prohibition/curtailment of discussion. (Would "atypical" be better - even though it means pretty much the same thing?)

I just find it absurd that we're "not allowed" to state facts, and/or this is, of itself, somehow wrong? There's plenty of very real stuff to worry about out there, rather than shite like this (soz). Me? I've just volunteered to help operate the food bank around here for example, which means more to me than the "correct" syntax and etiquette on bloody Twitter.

This is amazing, like you can't care about poverty and trans rights at the same time.

You are a clueless berk, sorry. You've been left behind in the world. Educate yourself, please. Just because you're not an authority on something (anything, it appears) doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be personal. But the only thing I'm intolerent of is intolerence itself. And that pissed me off.

Someone who's never been in the position of the marginalised or oppressed telling people they need to toughen up. Makes me fucking sick, tbh.

It was a genuine question as I've never heard the term before. I used quotes to attempt to avoid getting any goats.

Edit: I've known a few transsexuals in my decade at this melting pot of a university as well as countless gays, lesbians and all shades in between. Trust me when I say that "normal" should always be in quotes

Yeah I didn't feel DavPaz's question was inflammatory at all, tbh. He showed a genuine interest in learning.

Well if we're just going to ignore anything like that and stick to dictionary definitions then why not just go ahead and call them freaks? You wouldn't because you know that's it's loaded with meaning beyond what the dictionary says. Why is not possible for you to accept that being described as abnormal is too for some people.

...And this is exactly what I'm talking about guys; it's immediately turned personal.

Sorry, "clueless berk who's been left behind in the world" or no, I don't agree. END OF.
I want no part of that "world", thanks, and I'm not alone either.

Because you're being incredibly rude and dismissive. It's hard to keep my temper when you wade in here halfway through a discussion and IGNORE all the points previously made!

And no, you're not alone. There is a minority of reactionary old white men who would rather the world be like it was before, where you could be as bigoted as you liked without any fear of retribution. Thankfully the world is moving on from that and becoming much more enlightened.



You wouldn't say those words anymore, would you? So why is it so fucking difficult for you to understand that words and language and meanings change constantly, and things you think are acceptable now just aren't?

You truly think that no young people, women or people of colour think like that?

I'm not ignoring anything, this is my opinion, as someone who has not one shred of bigotry towards anyone, least of all trans people. I just think it's all gone too bloody far; I certainly don't want to go back to people being able to use terms like the n-word or whatever but neither do I like where we now find ourselves?

I'm sorry if I've upset you, knew I should've kept my gob shut. It's just genuinely how I feel, it's deffo a generational thing and I was never the most tactful, thoughtful, self-aware person at the best of times.

Of course there are, but they're statistically insignificant.

Considering this is a conversation about generalising, you probably could have chosen your words better.

Tricky, isn't it?

There are what, in excess of one billion adherents to a particular religion, many of whom are non-white, and many of whom who, due to the tenets of their religion, believe all sorts of things that you would be very unhappy about, including things about transsexuality (and homosexuality for that matter) that would make "abnormal" look polite. The same goes for fundamentalist Christians (of both genders and many races - look at the laws passed in Uganda, for god's sake). It's emphatically not just the old white men who struggle with treating others equally, and to paint it as such is baffling. I'd suggest that actually the "old white men" in the group of "the intolerant" in this respect are the minority.

Yeah you have upset me, but thank you for the apology.

I don't you can go too far, imo. I just don't see how it's hard to stop saying a word or using phrases if someone says to me 'I don't like that.' More than anything else it's just common courtesy, surely? Also what is your rationale behind not being able to use the n-word, but being ok with using terms and phrases that trans people have decreed offensive? Especially as you say you have not one shred of bigotry towards them? I just don't understand where you're coming from. Either you believe in free speech at all costs (including the word 'nigger') or you believe in fostering inclusivity of all minorities, genders and abilities. I don't believe that's a false dichotomy.