So, Bahar Mustafa has been charged with RMMC (according to the Guardian)

[Azure23]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

Bear with me for like the two seconds it'll take to make this point. If you're an ally, it's not about you, it's about helping others. Sometimes that means letting them have their own space, we don't always need to be included if marginalized groups want to meet without us. She made reference to straight and male allies in the email, so she's clearly not looking to exclude white men from activism.

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences, that's what intersectional feminism is about. If you're a straight white man a large part of the western world is "your space," don't begrudge people a classroom for a few hours. And ask yourself why you feel attacked by a twitter joke hashtag, because that's what Killallwhitemen is, it's a joke. It was created to mock people who characterize feminism as "just so radical, like Marx and Stalin had a baby and it's name was Andrea Dworkin." It's not a sincere expression of hate, and trying to characterize it as such is ridiculous.

I don't know enough about the woman to defend her from some of the criticisms I've seen leveled against her, but I don't believe the choice to exclude cis white men from a meeting designed by and for marginalized groups is abhorrent in the least. As for the rest, if she is indeed being charged for her use of the hashtag (and this may not be the case, there is apparently another communication which we are not privy to yet) then that is some odd application of justice, considering the actual racist, fascist elements present in the UK political body (which she roundly criticized over social media before being charged).

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

 

[1981]

Seems like a fair point to me, what's the problem?

Why does a white person want to attend a black support group meeting? Or a

students' union meeting intended for ethnic minority women and non-binary attendees.

Why does she even have to ask people who are not part of the target demo to not attend? Where does it say that the intention of that meeting was to promote diversity?

edit: Azure23 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.883255.22281668] beat me to it. And yeah, she did promise to give allies an opportunity to get involved, but I'm guessing it didn't go well.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Seems like a fair point to me, what's the problem?

Why does a white person want to attend a black support group meeting? Or a

students' union meeting intended for ethnic minority women and non-binary attendees.

Why does she even have to ask people who are not part of the target demo to not attend? Where does it say that the intention of that meeting was to promote diversity?

I think it's because prejudicing yourself against someone on the basis of their skin color or suspected ethnic group is bigotry. In fact, I'm fairly certain that is.

 

[1981]

I think it's because prejudicing yourself against someone on the basis of their skin color or suspected ethnic group is bigotry.

What makes you think this person or these people are prejudiced?

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences [...]

I'm a Christian, and I've always had a problem with how the church treats LGBT people. That's why I've never hesitated to speak out, sign petitions and whatnot. But I've never been shunned by either side. I think it's because I don't act like it's all about me, and I don't force my views on others. I've heard people say things like "if I was gay..." And I've felt like saying "well you're not".

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Why does she even have to ask people who are not part of the target demo to not attend? Where does it say that the intention of that meeting was to promote diversity?

Originally, the meeting in question was to be open to everyone to attend as a meeting on diversity. Bahar Mustafa sent out notices asking everyone who was either white or male to not attend because, according to Bahar and not the original meeting plan, the session was going to be solely for minorities and women. The problem is that she redefined the meeting and excluded large segments of people based solely on gender and skin color.

 

[Squilookle]

I get where you're coming from and I agree, but when I see something like this:

Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart fame has written something on freedom of speech [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/06/bahar-mustafa-should-never-have-been-arrested-for-tweeting/] in response to this judicial activity, and why it's meaningless unless applied equally to everyone, especially those with which you disagree.

How can I not be reminded of Animal Farm's stance on equality? Way to go shooting themselves in the foot if they use the words equality and everyone in a sentence, before chucking it all away with an 'especially'.

 

[Jake Martinez]

I think it's because prejudicing yourself against someone on the basis of their skin color or suspected ethnic group is bigotry.

What makes you think this person or these people are prejudiced?

Well, asides from the fact as a non-caucasian (as if my surname didn't give that away) that I have first hand experience with prejudice and bigotry and hence can recognize it fairly easily, I would also have to add that the prejudice in her statements is implicit.

The demand that people of a certain skin color or ethnic group stay away from a function is predicated on a prejudiced and bigoted opinion of someone or the effects their presence may have simply due to surface traits that they cannot realistically avoid. No one after all chooses what skin color they are born with or what ethnic group they are born into. This is practically the definition of prejudice and I have to admit that I'm more than a little incredulous that you would be defending her on this ground, even if you are attempting to play "devils advocate".

 

[elvor0]

what is the purpose of putting only minorities in a room designed to promote diversity? Surely you want people outside of the victims to be there to help raise those issues outside of the room? You're not having a debate or engaging in anything useful, it's just masturbatory slacktivism. Luther King didn't just sit in a room complaining how hard done by he was, nor did the people leading the charge of the gay rallys in the 80s. They fucking went out there and did stuff.

If that's sarcasm, you nailed it, mate! If not... Which planet are you from and how long have you been here?

No, it wasn't sarcasm, and I don't see why you'd think it was. Being exclusive at a diversity meeting is stupidly contradictory and sitting in a room complaining about how hard done by you are doesn't achieve anything. "Lets promote diversity! NO WHITES, MEN OR NON LGBT!"

People who went out and changed the world...actually went OUT and changed the world. And they certainly didn't exclude people who wanted to join with them based on physical attributes that you can do nothing about because that would be massively hypocritical.

Seems like a fair point to me, what's the problem?

Why does a white person want to attend a black support group meeting? Or a

students' union meeting intended for ethnic minority women and non-binary attendees.

It wasn't either of those things though. It was supposed to be a diversity rally and is/was still labelled as such. She just excluded a load of people at the last minute, then came out with her infamous "man tears" picture when people complained, and then said that minorities can't be racist with all seriousness.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

I honestly think people would have reacted differently if she didn't work as hard as she could to be the biggest ass possible about it. #killallwhitemen

Bear with me for like the two seconds it'll take to make this point. If you're an ally, it's not about you, it's about helping others.

I demand to be treated with respect. If someone wants to join your group to get shit on in the name of helping the underprivileged, that's on them I guess.

Sometimes that means letting them have their own space, we don't always need to be included if marginalized groups want to meet without us. She made reference to straight and male allies in the email, so she's clearly not looking to exclude white men from activism.

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences, that's what intersectional feminism is about.

Yea, well, that's why I'm not one of those. I think for myself and I demand respect. Tell someone else to shut up. By the way, is that you in your profile picture? Because you have a lot to say.

If you're a straight white man a large part of the western world is "your space,"

Are the poor invited? There used to be this thing called 'solidarity'. The parochialism of this brand of right-wing progressivism is a total dealbreaker for me.

don't begrudge people a classroom for a few hours. And ask yourself why you feel attacked by a twitter joke hashtag, because that's what Killallwhitemen is, it's a joke. It was created to mock people who characterize feminism as "just so radical, like Marx and Stalin had a baby and it's name was Andrea Dworkin." It's not a sincere expression of hate, and trying to characterize it as such is ridiculous.

Like I said above. The joke only works if you're not an over the moon man-hater. If you are, it's just wallowing in hate. You may want to read up on Bahar Mustafa before you defend her on these grounds.

I don't know enough about the woman to defend her from some of the criticisms I've seen leveled against her, but I don't believe the choice to exclude cis white men from a meeting designed by and for marginalized groups is abhorrent in the least. As for the rest, if she is indeed being charged for her use of the hashtag (and this may not be the case, there is apparently another communication which we are not privy to yet) then that is some odd application of justice, considering the actual racist, fascist elements present in the UK political body (which she roundly criticized over social media before being charged).

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

The divisiveness of the definition comes from it being an insult to my intelligence. Suppose I told you women are equal in Saudi Arabia because equality is defined as a state where one group lives in servitude to another group, therefore Saudi women are equal. That wouldn't be treating you with respect as a thinker. That would be pretty disrespectful to you, in fact. Playing games with language and trying to bully me into accepting it doesn't change the concepts underneath.

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

I honestly think people would have reacted differently if she didn't work as hard as she could to be the biggest ass possible about it. #killallwhitemen

Eh, you get people angry at gay people wanting gay clubs to be for gay people.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

I honestly think people would have reacted differently if she didn't work as hard as she could to be the biggest ass possible about it. #killallwhitemen

Eh, you get people angry at gay people wanting gay clubs to be for gay people.

I'm sure, but there are events for women and minorities all over the place all the time, and there is a reason Bahar Mustafa got heat when so many do not. Do you think Mustafa's words and deeds motivated the backlash to any extent or degree? Or are they entirely irrelevant to how people responded to the event?

(Above) Bahar Mustafa, crying out for understanding.

 

[Fallow]

I get where you're coming from and I agree, but when I see something like this:

Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart fame has written something on freedom of speech [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/06/bahar-mustafa-should-never-have-been-arrested-for-tweeting/] in response to this judicial activity, and why it's meaningless unless applied equally to everyone, especially those with which you disagree.

How can I not be reminded of Animal Farm's stance on equality? Way to go shooting themselves in the foot if they use the words equality and everyone in a sentence, before chucking it all away with an 'especially'.

It's used for emphasis, as should be clear from the preceding part of the statement. Because we don't need free speech to say things that everyone agrees with. And that is the case here. Milo does not agree with Bahar Mustafa in any way, but wants to make it clear that even so she should have the right to say all the dumb and racist things she does, and that she should be freed of any charges (not cleared, but freed since the charges are a breach of her freedoms).

I hope that clears up any confusion.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

I honestly think people would have reacted differently if she didn't work as hard as she could to be the biggest ass possible about it. #killallwhitemen

Eh, you get people angry at gay people wanting gay clubs to be for gay people.

I'm sure, but there are events for women and minorities all over the place all the time, and there is a reason Bashar Mustapha got heat when so many do not. Do you think Mustapha's words and deeds motivated the backlash to any extent or degree? Or are they entirely irrelevant to how people responded to the event?

Not entirely irrelevant, no, but she could have gotten the same kind of backlash anyway, IMHO. She just went and got lots of publicity, which massively increased the odds of it happening.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

I honestly think people would have reacted differently if she didn't work as hard as she could to be the biggest ass possible about it. #killallwhitemen

Eh, you get people angry at gay people wanting gay clubs to be for gay people.

I'm sure, but there are events for women and minorities all over the place all the time, and there is a reason Bashar Mustapha got heat when so many do not. Do you think Mustapha's words and deeds motivated the backlash to any extent or degree? Or are they entirely irrelevant to how people responded to the event?

Not entirely irrelevant, no, but she could have gotten the same kind of backlash anyway, IMHO. She just went and got lots of publicity, which massively increased the odds of it happening.

Lots of stuff could have happened. What happened in this case is some idiot spouted her mouth off in a way wildly inappropriate for her position, got the response she wanted from the very people she was trying to antagonize, and finally fell victim to the thought police.

 

[Fallow]

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

There is absolutely not a "prevailing definition" of racism in academia. There is an established, accepted definition for the english language (used in academia by academics every day), and there is a vague 'mean whatever I want it to mean' definition coming from the gender studies field right now. This is not unique, a lot of words are currently being redefined by the identity politics adherents, such as misogyny, bigotry, harassment, rape, violence, and probably others.

Simply put, do not mistake the untested opinions coming out of gender studies as representative of academia, as that also includes a great many people that actually test and validate their hypotheses before publishing the findings as fact.

 

[1981]

Why do you think you should have been welcomed to that meeting? How would you have helped promote diversity among the students of Goldsmiths, University of London? Because that's what this is about. But since there are no rational arguments to be made, people do what they've always done: they single someone out and attack them as a person, thinking it will serve as a warning to others who might threaten their status. One convenient side effect is that the bulk of the discussion will be about Bahar Mustafa, free speech and equality, not the real issue.

 

[Mechamorph]

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences, that's what intersectional feminism is about. If you're a straight white man a large part of the western world is "your space," don't begrudge people a classroom for a few hours. And ask yourself why you feel attacked by a twitter joke hashtag, because that's what Killallwhitemen is, it's a joke. It was created to mock people who characterize feminism as "just so radical, like Marx and Stalin had a baby and it's name was Andrea Dworkin." It's not a sincere expression of hate, and trying to characterize it as such is ridiculous.

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

Firstly an ally is ostensibly an equal, this person treats "male allies" as vassals who are subordinate to her and take her orders. Secondly a joke is not funny unless you are actually joking. Mel Brooks joking about the Holocaust is funny, Angela Merkel less so.

Finally, I would like to point out that others have tried to point out that "academic" definition as well. The problem is that Miss Mustafa is conflating an academic, constructed definition for the one used in the actual English language. When people accuse her of being prejudiced against others due to her views, she claims that her views cannot fulfill the dictionary definition because it does not fulfill the "academic" definition. This is at best spurious if not outright nefarious sophistry. It can also be demonstrably absurd.

For example, I am not a White man. I belong to a different race and, in my own country, the political class share my race and gender. I take a tire iron and beat up the first White man I see. I am a racist. Then I buy a plane ticket to America where I no longer enjoy that nebulous "privilege" of sharing an accident of birth with the rich and powerful. I beat up a White man but I am no longer racist because I am now a minority. Regardless of how "academia" chooses to construct a new definition of racism, I think we can all agree that it can lead to patently absurd situations. Now here is the kicker; can I plead with a jury in America that I am not a perpetrator of a hate crime because by the "academic" definition, I am not actually a racist? How much water will that hold even with legal scholars?

Off topic:
I wonder if people will start thinking of Goldsmith's as "that college with the racist Diversity Officer"? I certainly hope not and if it does come to pass I reckon it would cause no little amount of frustration to the college and its community.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I get where you're coming from and I agree, but when I see something like this:

Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart fame has written something on freedom of speech [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/06/bahar-mustafa-should-never-have-been-arrested-for-tweeting/] in response to this judicial activity, and why it's meaningless unless applied equally to everyone, especially those with which you disagree.

How can I not be reminded of Animal Farm's stance on equality? Way to go shooting themselves in the foot if they use the words equality and everyone in a sentence, before chucking it all away with an 'especially'.

Milo is actually standing up for Bahar in this statement, he is saying that even though he does not agree with her, he is still protecting her rights to state her opinions without government interference.

It's not a situation of "I expect everyone to abide by laws and I'll be making especially sure the people I disagree with do too". it's a situation of "I expect everyone to benefit from basic human rights (such as the right to an opinion) and I will be making a especially sure the people whose opinion I disagree with benefit from this right as well."

The qualifier of it being a special case is not because he is being either more strict or more lax, but because it is very tempting to keep his mouth shut about this lack of rights because it actually benefits his arguments and his viewpoint if his opponents are being denied a voice.

A footballer will want the rules to be applied equally to everyone, so that the match is fair, but it may be especially difficult to speak up when a penalty is awarded to their team that they know wasn't actually a foul; for them to say "Oh, actually he didn't trip me, don't send him off" would be a benefit to the other team, and a detriment to his team, but if he wants to treat everyone equally then he must ensure that he supports fair play especially when it is applied to the opposite team because that is the hardest time to apply it, but on principle he must.

Hope that makes things a little clearer.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

For a diversity officer she sure runs an exclusive club.

 

[jklinders]

Heck even Sargon of Akkad thinks that charging her for these is a little much and he thinks she's even more of a waste of air than I do. He uses much of the same rational as Milo. Any time you hit someone with a charge of inciting violence, racial or otherwise through speech, that stick needs to be swung very carefully.

Bahar Mustafa is a terrible human being. The very worst kind of reactionary shit disturbing activist who tries to pretend to fight hatred with more hatred. She deserves to be ridiculed for her beliefs bot not criminally charged for them.