She, the other JB and I are part of the minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the trannies...We know that everything we have we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.It's interesting the way the leftist system works. In an objective sense, Julie Burchill is more privileged than 95% of men. From the age of 17 she was given a series of highly sought after jobs in the media, despite the fact that her commitment to some of the jobs was poor (she sent her husband of the time to do some of the film reviews she was supposed to complete or just made them up without having seen the films). She earned enough money from relatively creative, glamorous work to sustain a lifelong cocaine habit (she has written colourfully that she has "put enough toot up my admittedly sizeable snout to stun the entire Colombian armed forces").
And yet in her own mind she is not privileged because she worked to get where she is, i.e. she is self-made.
But the vast majority of white men could claim the same thing. Very few of us get to live off the old man's money. Most of us are plugging away in ordinary, unglamorous, uncreative jobs to support our families. And yet we're supposed to accept the loss of moral status that comes with being tagged "privileged" whilst the cocaine snorting Julie Burchill gets to be proud of being self-made.
Let me put all this another way. Given Julie Burchill's claim that she is not privileged because she got where she is by her own efforts, that then commits her to one of two positions. Either she has to admit that most men are also not privileged or she has to sustain a mental fiction in which she imagines men getting significant goods from some sort of secret boys' club.
"Either she has to admit that most men are also not privileged or she has to sustain a mental fiction in which she imagines men getting significant goods from some sort of secret boys' club."
ReplyDelete-
She won't be alone on needing to double down on feminist fiction.
The main, long-term implication of continuing mass non-white immigration into white countries plus forced integration and assimilation is an end to whites. Feminists don't care about that. (We are all dead in the long run.)
The medium term implication is that whites who do not "go gentle into that good night" or agree to be blended away will be a smaller share of the population and will have less clout even if they are at the top of the white heap, as privileged feminists are.
The short term implication is that there are more and more people who are entitled to privileges, including moral privileges, at the expense of the morally disfavored, that is white Christian males. The base of productive people who are at the bottom of the heap and made to pay for and acknowledge the multicultural-moral superiority of others is declining, and the number of revelers at the banquet is growing.
Somebody has to be moved away from the table, and whites, even privileged white women, can't argue for it to be non-whites, who more and more are the real issue, numerically.
Julie Burchill has decided that transsexuals can safely be attacked.
OK. And then? Because that's not going to be enough.
Julie Burchill: "I am godmother to her three brilliant, beautiful daughters. Though we differ on certain issues we will have each other's backs until the sacred cows come home."
Bad news Julie: multiculturalism's sacred cows are coming home now.
By the way, I love the sub-heading: "It's never a good idea for those who feel oppressed to start bullying others in turn".
For gaining privileges, including moral privileges, in multiculturalism, that's always a good idea, unless you are part of a subordinated group like white Christian males that's not supposed to ask for more. For those the diversity machine privileges, promoting your grievance history and bullying "others" is how you get things.
"And yet in her own mind she is not privileged because she worked to get where she is, i.e. she is self-made.
ReplyDeleteBut the vast majority of white men could claim the same thing. Very few of us get to live off the old man's money. Most of us are plugging away in ordinary, unglamorous, uncreative jobs to support our families. And yet we're supposed to accept the loss of moral status that comes with being tagged "privileged" whilst the cocaine snorting Julie Burchill gets to be proud of being self-made."
John steals Peter's apple. Clearly John is the villain.
But hang on, John stole Peter's apple because Peter stole John's horse.
Now Peter is the villain and John the hero.
But wait, Peter stole John's horse because John killed Peter's son.
Now Peter is the hero and John is the villain.
But there's more, John killed Peter's son because Peter killed John's family and raped his wife and daughters.
Now John is the hero and Peter is the villain.
The fact is, the morality of a person, class or group, who is the hero and who is the villain, is entirely dependent on their portrayal in the story and what information is left in and left out.
Now you know why leftists are so concerned with 'narratives'.
And that's all leftist griping is (i.e. about privilege), a narrative, a story, and one that leaves out a whole lot of the other character's side.
There's a reason leftists get English, Media and Communications degrees rather than STEM ones. This is it.
the post, and daybreaker, take this one apart
ReplyDeleteburchill and company have shredded western civilization while they glopped for forty years at the hogtrough, spluttering about Oppression as the feed flew from their snouts
the monstresses and their supporters grow nervous, if theyre down to attacking transexuals lol
the burchills are legion, and worse than useless, they are absolute poison to anything good
This criticism that they are "privileged white feminists" is quite accurate at least in the USA (I don't know about the UK but possibly the same). Most of the hardest feminists are SWPL White liberal women who are "playing career women", "playing warrior women" and so forth while being dutiful housewives or working part-time to white liberal men. They just take the mantle of feminism because they don't want to seem like "simple housewives of rich white liberal men". It's like an having some sort of accomplishment. It's status defining (they are not lowly) and can also feed their ego.
ReplyDeleteThe great majority of white female supporters of liberalism in the USA tend to be upper-middle class or upper-class in the USA. They are the ones who have the possibility of "fabulous careers", while being insulated from Blacks and Hispanics (due to expensive housing, expensive private schools, environmental taxation which keeps them out of certain areas). Most other men and women in America of every social class just have jobs, not careers. It's just that these women are typically blind to most men "below them" and hate other women. Feminism acts as a way of enforcing class norms, and of giving a sense of worth to white liberal women who almost never end up working full-time after marriage in their late 20's/early 30's, with SWPL norms enforcing racial divisions (some of the whitest states in the USA are white liberal).
ReplyDeleteDaybreaker,
ReplyDeleteSomething else to throw into the mix. I noticed in the high school high achiever news stories this year a distinctly reduced number of white female faces. It seems that Asian girls are outcompeting them at the private girls schools.
I suspect that will be part of the "moving away from the table" that you mentioned in your comment. It might happen sooner rather than later in Australia.
Mark Richardson: I hadn't noticed that.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right.
That was an absolutely fascinating rant by her. LOL And so unintentionally ironic.
ReplyDeleteObviously, she's completely right. But if her argument holds for the trannies, then...?
"We know that everything we have we got for ourselves."
ReplyDeleteJulie Burchill, you didn't build that.
You did not get anything for yourself. Everything you have you got through exploiting the cultural systems and structures created by men. You have done nothing other than appropriate the goods of those man-made systems for your own purposes.
It looks like the trannies got their revenge -- if you follow the link now, you'll see that the Guardian decided to remove her commentary, calling its inclusion an error because it was "offensive".
ReplyDeleteGay is the new black, folks. Even white feminists have to bow to the new obeisance to the homosexual calf. In terms of the priority of grievance, gays (and trannies, who are lumped together with them, whether gays like that or not) are at the top 'o the list, ladies.
You break it, you own it, girls.
"You have done nothing other than appropriate the goods of those man-made systems for your own purposes."
ReplyDeleteindeed, julie and her ssisterhood got NOTHING for themselves, but stole from their betters while skreeching about nonexistent oppression
not content to rob the lives, inheritances, children, and freedom from Those Evil Males, julie birchpill and her fatass ssisters in fact DID construct something -- an international, and near-global, empire of cultural and "legal" terrorism against boys and men... fully funded and enforced by their governments, schools, courts, etc
so, credit where credit is due, and when the time comes (and it will) julie, and friends, and enablers, will reap the fullness of their iniquity, malice, and lies
there is no hurry, God has forever
Brendan I beg to differ. In the liberal hierarchy "Blackness" (not being white) trumps homosexuality when its a stand off between the race card or the homosexual card.
ReplyDeleteBurchill lost because she was unable to play the race card. All she had was the white female card. Which is below the sexual orientation card.
That's not true. Tons of black men who spoke of gays in less than glowing terms have found that out.
ReplyDeleteWhite men still have the upper hand, it's just the openly deviant ones (transsexuals, homosexuals) rather than less creepy ones.
White men still have the upper hand, it's just the openly deviant ones (transsexuals, homosexuals) rather than less creepy ones.
ReplyDelete-
In terms of higher education and employment, that's not true. White is the least favorable category, due to the pressure to hire "minorities".
That doesn't mean whites are favored in areas where they are the minority, or that they will be favored overall when they become a minority overall. Political correctness won't help whites.
Day-in-day out, mandatory anti-racism has the greatest sway. And anti-racism is anti-white, not in favor of the minority with no regard for who the minority is.
I'll expand on the card hierarchy which is interesting that Liberalism has formed its own laws that are mixture of illegitimate rules and worryingly a host of real legitimate laws that are more like accusations of being a witch.
ReplyDeleteThe whole "privilege" accusation phenomenon has become a bit of a running joke on the internet when it was exposed. The "privilege" police the "privilege checkers" even have their own check lists for determining privilege.
On these lists being a woman earns you zero privilege points.
Being a man will say 100.
Transsexuals would get a -20 or something.
Now this is where the feminist insanity becomes humorous because Transsexuals are men they +80 privilege. More privileged than a female. Thus the "Privilege checkers" feel secure enough to single out transsexuals for attack.
Even though they would appear to be progressive allies!
Burchills comments are thus simply man hate ignoring the fact they are transsexuals. They at least recognize they are not genuine females but it is not the same as for instance a non-progressive simply not acknowledging transsexual as female (my view)
to anon @ 10:00pm
Plenty of black celebrities and influential people have spoken continually of their hatred of homosexuals and they have neither lost their celebrity status or their jobs.
There are also many cases of blacks and homosexuals getting into fights and the blacks drawing the race card per-emptively (or as a reflex) and the homosexuals having absolutely no ground to stand on. Unless they are murdered of course.
Liberal/leftists consider race more important in their hierarchy then sexuality.
Pim Fortyn was for instance a "racist" despite being a gay man.
As Daybreaker put it nothing can protect you from the "racist" label if you are white.
Daybreaker,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points, but I can't see whites being pushed out of the job market. Whites are the most obediant and efficient servants of liberalism. White men keep things running - if 'white male' was a brand it would be competent, diligent, professional, intelligent and easy-going. White males in cahoots with liberalism are in a position to make out. Look at the typical left-wing NGO office, or government department, or teacher staffroom - they have stayed overwhelmingly white and liberal in the face of increasing immigration. In multicultural countries whites are more culturally attuned to liberalism than other people. It is an ideology that reflects other parts of our culture better than it does for, say, Sudanese or Arabs.
There will be a conflict between competing liberal values - protecting the SWPL lifestyle from immigrants holding a non-liberal machismo culture OR the old 60s practice of tearing down the white patriarchal Christian/lumpen male.
I am a pessimist, restricting immigration for ethnic/tradition reasons is just too heretical in a white liberal country. Anything white populations do that is conceivably in their ethnic interests is de facto Nazi - heresy, anathema. Immigration restrictions, if they ever come in to effect, will be framed in terms of defense of liberal values, a la Geert Wilders.
Look at the typical left-wing NGO office, or government department, or teacher staffroom
ReplyDeleteBeg to differ, personally I was forced out of an NGO because it was entirely non-white and the anti-white racism was getting dangerous (yes physical threats at a white collar desk job)
Its where I was informed by a black female manager that I was a soulless white male and was denied promotion (not even an exaggeration I reported her and that was the last straw)
On government departments certain anonymous moles that lurk around the internet have revealed Government departments are being taken over systematically by Indians (pretty standard Indian modus oprandi).
Now I wasn't 100% convinced of this till I checked on my old work colleagues in my non-white predominately Indian immigrant company I was working for.
To my amazement just as the moles had said they were all working at government departments!
That is amazing as I knew these people they had only just recently migrated to the country and hardly a few years at a basic IT job and they were already on to well paid Nationally critical government job.
At least in Australia there is no guarantee for anything as an Australian. This is the reason there is growing resentment. Other countries like the Scandinavian countries have at least secured the best positions for their own kind.
There is no reason to be pessimistic the whole system is going to collapse when White men naturally shrug their shoulders not willing to support a system that ruins their life and forces them to watch the hand over of their nation to outsiders.
I've done this. Now it is your turn.