Monday, January 14, 2019

Youtube daily report Jan 14 2019

Meghan's maid of honour at her first wedding blames the future Royal for the mysterious end to the marriage:

Friend since the age of two describes how fame changed Harry's bride-to-be.

Ninaki Priddy is torn between joy and a deep bewilderment when she remembers the blissfully happy day that her best friend,

Meghan Markle, married her 'eternal love' six years ago.

The actress was 30 years old and riding high on the success of the first series of the American TV drama Suits

when she vowed to love and cherish film producer Trevor Engelson in front of more than 100 guests on a beach in Jamaica.

Such was the jubilation at the chic colonial-style hotel that the celebrations lasted several days.

'Meg literally shone with happiness,' says Ninaki, who was maid of honour.

'We'd been like sisters since we were two years old, so I knew she'd always wanted to get married.

'To see her finally doing that was . . . well, it was a big deal. It was such a moving wedding.

I started crying the moment I saw her in her dress. We had the ceremony on the beach.

It was so beautiful to watch, beautiful to be a part of. They each wrote their own vows. They loved each other so much.

'Meg had just finished the first series of Suits [in which she played the bewitching paralegal Rachel Zane].

It was a big part for her — her first full-time role.

'She'd hustled for years to get there, so that was huge. Trevor was so supportive.

He travelled back and forth [from Los Angeles to Toronto,

where Suits is filmed] and there was a lot of Skyping and FaceTiming going on.

'It was an exciting time. This was the man she wanted to have children with'.

Fast forward six years. That marriage is over and Meghan has just become engaged to Prince Harry.

Many of the friends who celebrated with the newlyweds on that beach are no longer speaking to Meghan.

Ninaki says her own falling out with Meghan came after she disapproved of the manner of Meghan's break-up from Trevor.

But there is no doubt Ninaki misses Meghan as she tells the story of their friendship.

The girls were inseparable from their first days at Hollywood's private Little Red School House,

which they both joined at the age of two, before moving on together at 11 to the Immaculate Heart girls' high school in Los Angeles.

Their extraordinary bond spanned 31 years of sleepovers, a holiday in Europe as 15-year-olds;

including a picture opportunity for Ninaki and Meghan outside Buckingham Palace — and road trips across the United States.

They supported each other through their parents' acrimonious divorces and their own love affairs.

Together, they shared their secrets and dreams as each of them set out to make their mark upon the world.

Ninaki runs her fingers over a photograph of Meghan in a tiny yellow polka dot bikini taken the day

before she made those wedding vows to Trevor, now 41.

It's one of many from Ninaki's revealing album that charts a 31-year friendship and is published exclusively in today's Daily Mail.

'Look at her. She was so ecstatic,' Ninaki smiles fondly. Then her face hardens.

'The person I knew is not there any more,' she says. 'Meg used to tell me she couldn't imagine a life without Trevor.

She said if anything were to happen to him she wouldn't be able to go on.

'He cherished her, too. You should have seen the way he used to hold her face in his hands. We all felt he was her eternal love.

'It was such a shock when she told me they were getting divorced.

After about three seasons of Suits, she called me and said she wanted me to know because it was going to come out in the papers.

'I knew they fought sometimes, but it wasn't anything huge.

The only obstacle was the distance because she was living in Toronto and Trevor was based in LA.

'But I thought that they were manoeuvring through it as best they could.

Trevor would take his work to Canada to be with her and run his office remotely.

'I wasn't aware there were any problems in the marriage.'

She shrugs. 'I had to accept what she said, but then' . . .

Ninaki hesitates. She has loved Meghan dearly for most of her life and is not the sort of person to easily betray somebody.

Choosing her words carefully, Ninaki says she no longer recognises the girl with whom she shared her childhood.

More to the point, she feels desperately for Trevor, for whom the ignominy of seeing his former wife now lovestruck

with her very own Prince Charming is almost too much to bear. He truly believed they would grow old together.

'A month after the divorce, I wanted to see how Trevor was doing,' says Ninaki.

'We met and talked. It's not up to me to speak for Trevor,

but I know he was travelling to Toronto every few weeks and would have walked the earth to make their marriage work.

'I don't believe she gave him enough of an opportunity. I think there was an element of "out of sight, out of mind" for Meghan.

'The way she handled it, Trevor definitely had the rug pulled out from under him. He was hurt'.

Meghan reportedly began dating dashing celebrity chef Cory Vitiello who also lives in Toronto,

in 2014, a few months after her separation from Trevor.

'I tried to get details from her, but she wouldn't tell me.

What came to light after Trevor and I spoke ended my friendship with Meghan.

I think everybody who knew them both was in shock.

'All I can say now is that I think Meghan was calculated — very calculated — in the way she handled people and relationships.

She is very strategic in the way she cultivates circles of friends.

Once she decides you're not part of her life, she can be very cold.

'It's this shutdown mechanism she has. There's nothing to negotiate. She's made her decision and that's it'.

Ninaki says this not with malice, but sadness, for she and Meghan were 'like sisters' for decades.

Her earliest memory is of Meghan reaching out to touch her hair. 'She loved it because it was so long and straight.

She had this amazing curly mane. I always cherished her hair and she mine'.

Ninaki smiles as she thumbs through photographs of the two of them on stage at an age when they were too young for joined-up writing, let alone to sign autographs.

'Meg always wanted to be famous,' says Ninaki. 'She just loved to be the centre of attention.

We used to imagine her receiving an Oscar. She used to practise announcing herself.

'In a way, she was nurtured on a stage. She knew no other life.

Her dad, Tom [a lighting engineer], was a great coach in that respect.

He'd take photos of her on stage right from a young age.

Her mum, Doria, was very cool. She was this free spirit who'd dance around the house telling Meg to loosen up.

She'd say: "You've got to have fun, but keep working at it". Meg was the star with her parents.

'She was tough, too. If you rubbed her up the wrong way, she'd make it known with the silent treatment.

There was a time, when we were about seven, and I'd collected a bunch of insects. She didn't want to play with them.

'We spent two hours sitting at opposite ends of the garden with our backs to each other in silence.

I'd always be the first to apologise. I just wanted to be besties again. She was stubborn. She digs her heels in the ground'.

Today, Ninaki is a stylish young woman who works as a designer in LA.

She oscillates between raging against Meghan and feeling a deep visceral hurt.

'We had the kind of love you have for a sister. The end of our friendship was like a death,' she says. 'I mourned it for quite a while.

'Even now I'll pass by a magazine stand and see a face staring out at me that was such a big part of my life.

'It was always Niki and Meg. We were so close-knit we came as a two,' says Nikani.

'We were both honorary daughters in each other's homes. We were like family'.

'Family' is a word that crops up throughout this interview,

which provides the most revealing insight to date into the woman who's captured Prince Harry's heart.

'The idea of having a family was something Meg very much wanted,

particularly because she was from a family that felt very disjointed,' says Ninaki.

'I think when you're an only child in that situation your friends do become your family'.

Trevor became part of that family, too. For this was no brief, marry-in-haste-repent-at-leisure fling,

but a committed ten-year relationship; one that also gave Meghan something of a helping hand in her acting career.

Meghan and Trevor met within 18 months of her graduating from Northwestern University with a degree in theatre and international studies.

She was 23. Trevor, a tall, handsome man, was five years her senior and already flourishing in the film industry.

'They met on a night out in LA. He was managing film industry writers,' recalls Ninaki.

'At first, I didn't like him because it was that thing of, "Oh my God, he's stealing my best friend".

I met him at a birthday party he threw for her — her 24th, I think.

'Meg had beautiful handwriting and was supplementing her income as a freelance calligraphy artist.

He was very focused with great connections.

'It was an opportunity for her to establish relationships with agents. She loved it — being at his side and going to those dinners.

'Trevor was big for her. She loved him. He was very doting.

They were a great support system for each other through difficult times,

like the death of her grandma, her father's mother, Grandma Markle. Meghan was really close to her'.

Within a year, Meghan and Trevor were living together. 'She was definitely a curator of a beautiful life,' says Ninaki.

'She liked to throw dinner parties with beautiful menus that complemented flavour profiles with amazing wines.

'She had a very specific style. She loved her hotel-style bedding — beautiful, contrasting black piping detail on crisp, white duvets.

She loved everything white. Meg was a perfectionist'.

As well as keeping all things domestic well ordered, Ninaki says Meghan possessed incredible powers of diplomacy.

She says Meghan learned from a young age to keep the peace between her parents following their divorce.

Ninaki continues: 'She is very poised. A natural mediator.

For almost as long as I knew Meghan, her parents weren't together. It could be hard for her.

Sometimes she felt she had to pick sides. She was always trying to make sure each of them was happy'.

Ninaki says she has always admired Meghan for handling her parents so skilfully from such a young age.

'She'd have to relay messages. It was literally stuff like,

"Tell your mother . . ." or "Tell your father . . ." Controlling her emotions is something she learnt back then'.

Meghan has always maintained her parents' separation was about as easy as a divorce can be for a child.

But Ninaki, who spent many childhood weekends with Meghan, recalls things differently.

'Sometimes, one parent needed a little more attention, so Meghan would devote herself to that parent,' she says.

'When she was younger, she spent most of her time with Doria.

Doria used to dance around the house and have girlie evenings with us.

Then, when Meg got to Junior High — around 13 or 14 — she began living with her dad.

'Tom allowed her more space. Doria was very mothering. She set more boundaries.

Tom let us get away with things. He provided a less strict household.

'As a teenager, who doesn't want that? But as Meg got older she had to parent Tom a little more and she couldn't do that'.

Ninaki refuses to elaborate further on Meghan's father or their relationship.

Today, he lives in Mexico and has not featured in the story of her romance with Prince Harry.

'I think she's protecting him,' is all Ninaki will add.

Despite being the child of divorced parents, Ninaki says Meghan always wanted a family of her own.

'She was definitely looking forward to having children. She really wanted to be a mum.

She'd see a baby and just . . .' Ninaki hugs an imaginary child to her breast.

She continues: 'Trevor asked her to marry him the year before Suits. They were on holiday in Belize, I think.

She called me immediately. She was ecstatic and sent me some beautiful pictures.

'Meghan came to show me the ring when she got home and was so excited.

She asked me to be maid of honour. We were hugging each other and crying.

'Then, after the wedding, it was like a light switched off. There's Meghan Before Fame and Meghan After Fame.

After three seasons of Suits, she called me to say the marriage was over.

'Maybe she had started to change before then, but I was refusing to see it.

The tone of her voice, her mannerisms, the way she laughed didn't seem real to me any more.

'Even by season two of Suits, she was turning down lunch with us because she said she'd be recognised.

I felt if I questioned her behaviour, I'd be left on the outside. Sometimes the truth is not always what you want, is it?

'Her time became increasingly important. When she was in town, she'd want you to drop everything to see her.

If I was busy, it would be, "Why don't you want to see me? I'm here. Let's hang out!"

'There were instances when I felt she developed a sense of entitlement because she was on the show.

The breaking point for me came when she wanted to adopt a dog.

'She'd fallen in love with it, but found someone else wanted the dog, too.

So she emailed the pet adoption people and explained how she could provide a great life for it.

'She spoke of what a great time the dog would have in the Suits Family.

I felt that she was playing the Suits card to try to get what she wanted.

'She included me and the other bridesmaids in the email chain because she wanted our moral support, I think.

'I didn't respond to it. It left a sour taste in my mouth. We began to talk less.

It was shortly after that I spoke to Trevor about the divorce.

'I phoned Meghan to speak about it, but she wouldn't confide in me.

It was obvious to me she wasn't the friend I'd grown up with any more. She had a new circle of friends'.

The friendship ended before Meghan began seeing Prince Harry. All Ninaki has heard about it is gossip.

But she has her own views on the life path that Meghan has chosen.

'I think it's a very fanciful dream to believe that you just walk into a Prince Charming.

'I know the Royal Family was something she found fascinating.

She had one of Princess Diana's books [Diana: Her True Story] on her bookshelf,

and even when she was with Trevor she told me she wanted to go and stay in London for at least a month.

'I can't remember exactly when this was, but she was married to Trevor and starring in Suits.

She mentioned about wanting to go to London a couple of times.

'I wasn't shocked or even surprised to hear about Prince Harry.

I know she used to love The Princess Diaries — films about a commoner who becomes part of a Royal Family.

She was very taken with that idea'.

Our interview is reaching an end. Ninaki must head back to work.

Before she goes, I wonder what's happened to poor Trevor.

'It took a long time, but he's put it in the past now,' she says.

'Of course, everyone's looking at him to see how he's reacting since the engagement has been announced, but I think he's handling it quite well.

So well, in fact, he is reportedly working on a film about a girl who is whisked away by a handsome prince. True?

Ninaki smiles enigmatically. 'Trevor is my family now. We're still friends'.

Thanks you for watching video! Please to Like and Share if you feel the video is useful.

And don't forget to leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

For more infomation >> Meghan Markle's maid of honour Ninaki Priddy reveals fame changed Harry's bride-to-be - Duration: 15:38.

-------------------------------------------

098 過去に未練 タイムマシンを作る デロリアン デアゴスティーニ BTTF Eaglemoss イーグルモス フロントジャンクションボックス - Duration: 8:01.

For more infomation >> 098 過去に未練 タイムマシンを作る デロリアン デアゴスティーニ BTTF Eaglemoss イーグルモス フロントジャンクションボックス - Duration: 8:01.

-------------------------------------------

Газовая плита (50-55 см) Gorenje G51103AW обзор - Duration: 1:22.

For more infomation >> Газовая плита (50-55 см) Gorenje G51103AW обзор - Duration: 1:22.

-------------------------------------------

Live Interview with Paul J. Kim #SEEK2019 - Duration: 6:56.

For more infomation >> Live Interview with Paul J. Kim #SEEK2019 - Duration: 6:56.

-------------------------------------------

Brocialists, Let's Talk Feminism - Duration: 15:39.

"Subscribe to Paul's channel - he loves that!

He's just, like, joking around, but he really wants subscribers.

It's because he's broke, you know?"

I've just started up a Patreon account now as well because all of the English language

schools in Dublin seem to be closing down, and this is making working as an English Language

Teacher far too precarious for me to be comfortable.

So if you do have a dollar or two per month, please consider donating via the link below

to help keep these videos going and to help keep me... alive!

What is brocialism?

Despite the playful name, it's not just about a bunch of college dudes who like socialism,

though it definitely is "a socialism of brothers, a laddish socialism".

When described in this way, there are probably a lot of people out there thinking that it

doesn't sound so bad.

Maybe a bit naive.

But probably not intentionally harmful or malicious...

Well, let's take a look at another definition.

This time it's from Wiktionary (unfortunately this term isn't yet recognised in the Oxford

English Dictionary so we need to rely on less formal sources):

Brocialist (Noun): "(slang, pejorative) a male socialist or progressive who downplays

women's issues or displays a macho attitude" Indeed.

And curiously, a brocialist isn't necessarily anti-feminist in theory.

From my own experience, I've only ever encountered one alleged "leftist" who was explicitly opposed

to feminism in all its forms.

But what they are, perhaps, is anti-feminist in their behaviour, rather than their ideology.

Most of them will likely say that they say love and support feminism, yet they replicate

the same oppressive patriarchal behaviours in their relationships which they claim to

fight.

These are described comically in JoutJout Prazer's video "NÃO VAI TER CONFETE, AMIGÃO"

about Brocialists, which is in Portuguese but has English subtitles - sorry for the

awful pronunciation.

Foi mal.

Embarrassingly, I have to admit that I've absolutely been guilty of many of the behaviours

described in this video myself at various points throughout my life.

I want to make it very clear that I'm holding myself to account here just as much as my

comrades.

We all need to work on this.

I'm NOT, however, advocating that we throw away these people or ostracise them from our

movement - in fact, this throw-away, disposability culture is one of the more pernicious aspects

of capitalist society that we need to fight.

People ARE NOT disposable, even if they say or do some shitty things.

So when we see shitty stuff happening, that's an opportunity to learn, to educate, and to

grow.

Mexie and Marine put it perfectly in the following segment of the Vegan Vanguard Podcast:

***MEXIE: This is something that has been going on in the leftist movement right now

- problematic people in the movement being "cancelled" MARINE: God, I hate that word.

MEXIE: Yeah, and I don't want to speak too much on the exact issue that happened recently.

But just this idea of...

You know...

Clearly, yes, there need to be consequences.

People in the community need to feel safe and it needs to be a safe space.

But, at the same time, I really don't think that we're going to...

Like, if we want the future to be one where there are no police, there is no carceral

punishment, then we have to think deeply on these questions of, like, "How do we deal

with people in our community who do do really problematic things?

Who do things like hurt other people in the movement...

Like, how do we heal those relationships?

How do we grow together?

How do we move forward in a way that makes us all stronger?/2 Instead of being just like

"Okay, you�re out of the movement."

Because it's like if we're cancelling everyone who has done problematic shit from the movement,

then everyone's just going to be outside and there's not going to be that many of us left

inside, you know what I mean?

Then how does that work?

Like we need to actually really think through these questions.***

Now, with all that being said, we do still need to address and rectify problems.

I want to suggest that brocialists might not be the best leftists that they could be.

Why do I say that?

Well, it appears that their praxis doesn't really match their theory.

And that seems to be the real issue.

For those who don't know, ""Praxis" is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill

is enacted, embodied, or realized."

In many cases, you could simply substitute the word "praxis" for "practice", so if this

is new to you then I recommend starting with that simple substitution.

Now, it seems that almost everyone who believes themselves to be on the political left will

agree "feminism good" (at least left-wing feminism, anyway, though we'll return to that

point later).

But maybe we don't apply this in real life as often as we should.

And perhaps, growing up under patriarchy, we simply don't recognise what the application

of feminism actually looks like...

So we (men, primarily, though not exclusively) tend to replicate the same misogyny in our

personal relationships that permeates the rest of society, even though we might explicitly

claim to fight against that in our leftist movements.

For example, the Black Panther Party from Oakland in the 1960s was notorious for its

moments of "blatant misogyny and sexism", despite its otherwise powerful revolutionary

struggles against oppression.

So how can we mend these instances of oppression occurring within otherwise anti-oppressive

movements?

Well, we need to talk about feminism.

And I just want to give a short warning before starting this section.

I'm a man.

A privileged, white man in a developed country in Europe.

As such, I feel a certain hesitancy when it comes to talking about feminism.

I believe that women need to lead the feminist struggle.

All people like myself can do is support and be an ally.

And if we do have privilege, then we need to use that to help those who don't.

So I want to put my hands up right now and say: I could be completely wrong about all

this stuff.

I'm trying to listen and learn as much as I can, but I'm certainly not perfect.

Most of what I'm doing in this video is regurgitating the experiences I've heard and read about

from women.

With that in mind, I want to recommend a number of incredible leftist (or at least, left-friendly)

women who you should go listen to on YouTube: Angie Speaks, Mexie, A Privileged Vegan, Mad

Blender, Mia Mulder, Jout Jout Prazer, Kat Blaque, Contrapoints, Lindsay Ellis, etc.

Links to all of these channels are in the description below.

If you truly want to support women, not just some lad on the internet ranting, go listen

to them talking about their experiences.

And of course, read books about feminist theory.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, I need to return to the statement that "brocialists

might not be the best leftists that they could be".

To qualify that statement, we need to agree on what "left-wing" and "right-wing" are.

It might sound elementary, but there are still people who argue that liberalism is left-wing,

so we need to get on the same page here...

I'm going to go ahead posit my own personal understanding of the left and right wing.

The redistribution of power from oppressors to the oppressed is the essence of the left

wing.

The reinstatement, maintenance or concentration of power into the hands of dominant groups

is the essence of the right wing.

The more power you want to redistribute to the oppressed, the further left you go, and

vice versa.

That power can, of course, take many forms, with money and civil rights being just two

of the most obvious.

Now, there's a whole spectrum from far-left to far-right, and holding one left-wing (or

redistributive) perspective on one subject, does not necessarily put you definitively

on the left per se.

For example, there are right-wing, conservative feminists.

Floating around the centre, you have liberal feminists.

Then on the left, you have Marxist feminists, anarcha-feminists, and other feminists who

are critical of capitalism.

While fighting for women's rights might intuitively sound inarguably left-wing (it is, after all,

the fight to redistribute power from oppressive men to oppressed women, isn't it?), we also

need to consider whether or not a particular feminist is truly fighting for the rights

of all women.

One of the major criticisms of second-wave feminism around the 1960s was that it primarily

focused on white, usually middle-class, heterosexual, cis-gendered women.

This excluded the vast majority of women from its liberatory struggle.

So can we even say that this was a movement fighting for women's rights if it didn't actually

fight for the rights of all women - just a select few who were already relatively privileged

to begin with?

It might be more accurate to say that it was a movement that fought for the rights of a

small group of particular women, while claiming it fought for all women's rights.

This consequently alienated many other women.

The simple necessity of the existence of the category "black feminism" is a testament to

the fact that women of colour were not being adequately represented by mainstream feminism.

So can we say that second-wave feminism was truly left-wing?

Well...

I'll let you decide that one.

But these are the kinds of questions we need to ask when we're talking about people or

movements being right-wing, left-wing, or some combination of the two which lands them

somewhere in the middle.

As Jout Jout notes in her video, brocialists are those supposed leftists who seek liberation

for women, but only so far as it's comfortable for them.

For me, this is reminiscent of the naive centrist liberal's mind-set that attempts to seek "equality"

and "egalitarianism" without ever confronting and overcoming capitalism - without ever really

understanding that egalitarianism can never be achieved while under a system built on

exploitation, hierarchy, and domination.

Brocialists seem to be the opposite side of the coin on this matter.

"Who cares about sexist microaggressions?" the brocialist might say.

"I'm interested in overthrowing capitalism and instating communism.

That's the most important thing.

The other stuff can come after the revolution."

We're going to need to talk about that, and also how we can maybe bring some of these

ideas together.

But first, we need to address the most common argument that brocialists will give to downplay

criticisms of their behaviour towards women, people of colour, members of the LGBTQIA+

community, and other oppressed groups; "Identity politics is divisive and bourgeois."

How did we on the left get from the pursuit of communism, to the popularly perceived notion

of identity politics?

Obviously identity politics does not only concern the left, but also the right and centre.

But let's focus on the identity politics of the left for a moment:

While describing the emergence of identity politics in her 2014 landmark, "Identity and

Capitalism" Marie Moran notes that: "The perception in the Cold War US that the expression of

social grievances in class terms was un-American gave rise even on the political left to a

shift in political discourse from class to "oppressed minority".

But more than simply a question of language and labels, Aronowitz argues, this was also

about real prospects of political identification with others.

Whereas once communism and socialism offered universal and counter-hegemonic prospects

for political allegiances, this was no longer the case.

Instead, the only readily available "political" positions were those that were constructed

around different, ostensibly non-class-based groups, where the political impetus was to

name grievances in particularistic terms".

So we began to see identity politics emerge in the 1960s and 1970s (though its roots could

be traced back further again) with the weakening of class-based politics.

Rather than just focusing on the working class proletariat, the left began to turn its attention

more towards seemingly fragmented struggles, such as improving civil rights for people

of colour, women, people of the LGBTQIA+ community, people with disabilities, etc.

And of course there were still some diehard communists holding up the red flag and fighting

for economic justice and equality, but this struggle was greatly diminished with the de-radicalisation

of the trade union labour movement, as well as through decades of anti-communist propaganda

and fearmongering.

But with this rise of identity politics, there was a problem.

Let's take an example: Women everywhere are struggling under patriarchy.

But maybe a poor woman is struggling more than her wealthy counterpart (and no, this

is not the oppression Olympics - it's not a competition) But maybe they aren't really

fighting for the exact same things in their struggles, despite being unified under the

identity of "woman".

A good example of this would be the situation in Ireland prior to this year's introduction

of legal abortion services.

Before 2019, Irish women COULD get abortions.

They simply needed to get on a plane, take a short flight to the UK, or to the Netherlands,

and procure their abortions there.

Arrangements for this could be made from Ireland.

So, what was the problem?

Why all the fuss?

Well, you needed a significant amount of money in order to do that.

If she didn't have three or four-thousand euro sitting in her bank account, it would

be extremely difficult for an Irish woman to have an abortion.

So it was very possible for middle-class, or upper-class women to procure abortions;

although, obviously travelling abroad was inconvenient, and potentially added to the

trauma of an already extremely difficult situation.

Working class or poor women, on the other hand, often didn't have the money to get abortions.

Here we see that abortion was not merely a women's rights-focused, feminist issue, but

also a class issue.

And yet, there were many liberal feminists fighting for women's rights who weren't talking

about the class element at all.

To complicate issues further, the conversation became less about "rights" in some abstract

sense (as every woman had the right to travel abroad and procure an abortion), and more

about "access" (because not every woman had access to one).

So how do we bring these struggles together?

Enter "intersectionality", a term first used by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, which was used

as a means of connecting and understanding the various oppressions faced by groups in

society and how these oppressions compound the effects of one another.

Being a woman in a patriarchal society is already difficult, but - as we've just seen

in the case of working class Irish women prior to 2019 - it's far more difficult if you're

a poor woman.

And we can apply this to any other oppressed position.

Intersectionality started out just focusing on connecting racism and sexism, then expanded

to class, sexuality, ability, age, religion and a whole range of other areas.

So now what happens when a brocialist walks in and states that the class struggle is the

primary struggle that we should focus on overcoming?

That the other oppressions will magically resolve themselves after "the revolution"

and our communist utopia is finally instated?

Well, we need to explain to our friend that - for example - sexism existed long before

capitalism, as did racism, and could potentially last much longer if we don't address these

issues right here and right now.

While it's definitely true that capitalism exacerbates sexism, racism, and many other

forms of oppression, it's not the SOLE cause of each one.

Intersectionality offers us on the left a unique opportunity to finally reunite and

form a strong, counter-hegemonic block which stands against oppression.

So brocialists, we need to make sure we're doing all we can to strengthen the left, to

recognise the struggles of our allies, and to do everything we can to support and show

solidarity.

If you don't support intersectional feminism, you should.

On the other hand, if you are a person who truly does support feminism in theory, then

you need to try your best to also support women in practice.

I know that's easier said than done, but we've got to try.

There are so many behaviours that we need to unlearn, that it can often be overwhelming.

We might feel the urge to just throw our hands up in the air and say "F*ck this!

I tried my best to support women, now I'm just being called a brocialist!?

There's no winning."

But please don't give up so easily.

We really need to be critical of ourselves on the left.

We will always be held to a much higher standard on these issues than those on the right because

we challenge the status quo in often very disruptive ways for the powers that be, and

we need to do everything that we can to meet that challenge.

We're fighting an uphill battle, and that requires constant scrutiny and critical reflection,

both upon ourselves, and upon others in our movement.

Hell, this holding of ourselves to a higher level of account is evident even here on YouTube.

Look at the quality of the videos by Olly (Philosophy Tube), Contrapoints, hbomberguy,

etc.

They're damn-near cinematic.

They're extensively researched, well-produced, thoughtful, creative, funny, and... well...

they need to be.

Look at any of the major right-wingers on YouTube and they're just lazy (but well-funded)

reactionary, opinionated, uninformed trash.

And it's easy for them because they simply defend the status quo.

So, following the examples of the great BreadTubers, every one of us on the left needs to be the

absolute best we can be.

Brocialists, we need you onboard with that.

Let's get intersectional.

We can't afford to just wait for the proletarian revolution which will finally bring about

economic justice and equality, we need to be firing on all fronts at all times.

To reiterate the main message of this video; we all need to practice intersectionality

if we want to enact meaningful political change (especially so if we are to call ourselves

leftists).

Those who are described as brocialists need to take feminism more seriously and apply

it in their daily lives.

On the flipside, feminists need to take on-board the class struggle, too.

All of us on the left need to do our best to understand, show support, and have true

solidarity with those oppressed by any and every kind of dominating force.

We need a left that is united in our counter-hegemonic action - even if we're not united in our specific

tendencies.

Take care, folks!

Love and solidarity to everyone.

For more infomation >> Brocialists, Let's Talk Feminism - Duration: 15:39.

-------------------------------------------

K-9 recovers after ingesting ecstasy - Duration: 1:47.

For more infomation >> K-9 recovers after ingesting ecstasy - Duration: 1:47.

-------------------------------------------

Hen Thinks Of Puppies As Her Own | Kritter Klub - Duration: 1:40.

A hen sits on a puppy?

What's their story?

Like any mother

Wakes the puppy up

Mom, five more minutes!

Hen's embrace must be the best blanket

Tries to separate them

Nope.

Travels a great distance to return to her puppy

Mommy's home!

Wake up22

Did you miss me?

Plays with the mother hen, much to her detriment

Even bites off her feathers

But the hen still loves the puppy dearly

Birds naturally nurture babies like their own

But it affects her health

Solution : Create an alternate home for the puppies

Let's move to this cozy house

Hen gets eggs to lay on

Compared to raising puppies, this is a piece of cake

A few days later,

☆They start to hatch!☆

For more infomation >> Hen Thinks Of Puppies As Her Own | Kritter Klub - Duration: 1:40.

-------------------------------------------

𝓢𝓣𝓐𝓡𝓘 𝓒𝓔𝓣𝓝𝓘𝓚 - Duration: 2:34.

MY GRANDPA'S

MY GRANDPA'S BEARD IS TO HIS BELT

HIS HAIR

HIS HAIR

WAVES LIKE THE SEA

HIS HAIR

HIS HAIR

WAVES LIKE THE SEA

MY OLD GRANDPA

LOOKED SO TOUGH

TO THIS DAY HE IS A FURIOUS SNAKE

HIS BADGE SHINES BRIGHT

TO THIS DAY HE IS A FOURIOUS SNAKE

HIS BADGE SHINES BRIGHT

ON HIM ARE

ON HIM ARE

TEN FURIOUS WOUNDS

OLD CHETNIK

OLD CHETNIK

WANTS TO FIGHT

OLD CHETNIK

OLD CHETNIK

WANTS TO FIGHT

MY OLD GRANDPA

LOOKED SO TOUGH

TO THIS DAY HE IS A FOURIOUS SNAKE

HIS BADGE SHINES BRIGHT

TO THIS DAY HE IS A FURIOUS SNAKE

HIS BADGE SHINES BRIGHT

ON ROGOJ

ON ROGOJ

HE FOUGHT, THEY SAY

HE LOVED

HE LOVED

GENERAL DRAŽA

HE LOVED

HE LOVED

GENERAL DRAŽA

MY OLD GRANDPA

LOOKED SO TOUGH

TO THIS DAY HE IS A FURIOUS SNAKE

HIS BADGE SHINES BRIGHT

TO THIS DAY HE IS A FURIOUS SNAKE

HIS BADGE SHINES BRIGHT

DRAŽA IS ALIVE

HE WON'T DIE

AS LONG AS THERE IS SERBIA AND SERBISM

For more infomation >> 𝓢𝓣𝓐𝓡𝓘 𝓒𝓔𝓣𝓝𝓘𝓚 - Duration: 2:34.

-------------------------------------------

Brocialists, Let's Talk Feminism - Duration: 15:39.

"Subscribe to Paul's channel - he loves that!

He's just, like, joking around, but he really wants subscribers.

It's because he's broke, you know?"

I've just started up a Patreon account now as well because all of the English language

schools in Dublin seem to be closing down, and this is making working as an English Language

Teacher far too precarious for me to be comfortable.

So if you do have a dollar or two per month, please consider donating via the link below

to help keep these videos going and to help keep me... alive!

What is brocialism?

Despite the playful name, it's not just about a bunch of college dudes who like socialism,

though it definitely is "a socialism of brothers, a laddish socialism".

When described in this way, there are probably a lot of people out there thinking that it

doesn't sound so bad.

Maybe a bit naive.

But probably not intentionally harmful or malicious...

Well, let's take a look at another definition.

This time it's from Wiktionary (unfortunately this term isn't yet recognised in the Oxford

English Dictionary so we need to rely on less formal sources):

Brocialist (Noun): "(slang, pejorative) a male socialist or progressive who downplays

women's issues or displays a macho attitude" Indeed.

And curiously, a brocialist isn't necessarily anti-feminist in theory.

From my own experience, I've only ever encountered one alleged "leftist" who was explicitly opposed

to feminism in all its forms.

But what they are, perhaps, is anti-feminist in their behaviour, rather than their ideology.

Most of them will likely say that they say love and support feminism, yet they replicate

the same oppressive patriarchal behaviours in their relationships which they claim to

fight.

These are described comically in JoutJout Prazer's video "NÃO VAI TER CONFETE, AMIGÃO"

about Brocialists, which is in Portuguese but has English subtitles - sorry for the

awful pronunciation.

Foi mal.

Embarrassingly, I have to admit that I've absolutely been guilty of many of the behaviours

described in this video myself at various points throughout my life.

I want to make it very clear that I'm holding myself to account here just as much as my

comrades.

We all need to work on this.

I'm NOT, however, advocating that we throw away these people or ostracise them from our

movement - in fact, this throw-away, disposability culture is one of the more pernicious aspects

of capitalist society that we need to fight.

People ARE NOT disposable, even if they say or do some shitty things.

So when we see shitty stuff happening, that's an opportunity to learn, to educate, and to

grow.

Mexie and Marine put it perfectly in the following segment of the Vegan Vanguard Podcast:

***MEXIE: This is something that has been going on in the leftist movement right now

- problematic people in the movement being "cancelled" MARINE: God, I hate that word.

MEXIE: Yeah, and I don't want to speak too much on the exact issue that happened recently.

But just this idea of...

You know...

Clearly, yes, there need to be consequences.

People in the community need to feel safe and it needs to be a safe space.

But, at the same time, I really don't think that we're going to...

Like, if we want the future to be one where there are no police, there is no carceral

punishment, then we have to think deeply on these questions of, like, "How do we deal

with people in our community who do do really problematic things?

Who do things like hurt other people in the movement...

Like, how do we heal those relationships?

How do we grow together?

How do we move forward in a way that makes us all stronger?/2 Instead of being just like

"Okay, you�re out of the movement."

Because it's like if we're cancelling everyone who has done problematic shit from the movement,

then everyone's just going to be outside and there's not going to be that many of us left

inside, you know what I mean?

Then how does that work?

Like we need to actually really think through these questions.***

Now, with all that being said, we do still need to address and rectify problems.

I want to suggest that brocialists might not be the best leftists that they could be.

Why do I say that?

Well, it appears that their praxis doesn't really match their theory.

And that seems to be the real issue.

For those who don't know, ""Praxis" is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill

is enacted, embodied, or realized."

In many cases, you could simply substitute the word "praxis" for "practice", so if this

is new to you then I recommend starting with that simple substitution.

Now, it seems that almost everyone who believes themselves to be on the political left will

agree "feminism good" (at least left-wing feminism, anyway, though we'll return to that

point later).

But maybe we don't apply this in real life as often as we should.

And perhaps, growing up under patriarchy, we simply don't recognise what the application

of feminism actually looks like...

So we (men, primarily, though not exclusively) tend to replicate the same misogyny in our

personal relationships that permeates the rest of society, even though we might explicitly

claim to fight against that in our leftist movements.

For example, the Black Panther Party from Oakland in the 1960s was notorious for its

moments of "blatant misogyny and sexism", despite its otherwise powerful revolutionary

struggles against oppression.

So how can we mend these instances of oppression occurring within otherwise anti-oppressive

movements?

Well, we need to talk about feminism.

And I just want to give a short warning before starting this section.

I'm a man.

A privileged, white man in a developed country in Europe.

As such, I feel a certain hesitancy when it comes to talking about feminism.

I believe that women need to lead the feminist struggle.

All people like myself can do is support and be an ally.

And if we do have privilege, then we need to use that to help those who don't.

So I want to put my hands up right now and say: I could be completely wrong about all

this stuff.

I'm trying to listen and learn as much as I can, but I'm certainly not perfect.

Most of what I'm doing in this video is regurgitating the experiences I've heard and read about

from women.

With that in mind, I want to recommend a number of incredible leftist (or at least, left-friendly)

women who you should go listen to on YouTube: Angie Speaks, Mexie, A Privileged Vegan, Mad

Blender, Mia Mulder, Jout Jout Prazer, Kat Blaque, Contrapoints, Lindsay Ellis, etc.

Links to all of these channels are in the description below.

If you truly want to support women, not just some lad on the internet ranting, go listen

to them talking about their experiences.

And of course, read books about feminist theory.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, I need to return to the statement that "brocialists

might not be the best leftists that they could be".

To qualify that statement, we need to agree on what "left-wing" and "right-wing" are.

It might sound elementary, but there are still people who argue that liberalism is left-wing,

so we need to get on the same page here...

I'm going to go ahead posit my own personal understanding of the left and right wing.

The redistribution of power from oppressors to the oppressed is the essence of the left

wing.

The reinstatement, maintenance or concentration of power into the hands of dominant groups

is the essence of the right wing.

The more power you want to redistribute to the oppressed, the further left you go, and

vice versa.

That power can, of course, take many forms, with money and civil rights being just two

of the most obvious.

Now, there's a whole spectrum from far-left to far-right, and holding one left-wing (or

redistributive) perspective on one subject, does not necessarily put you definitively

on the left per se.

For example, there are right-wing, conservative feminists.

Floating around the centre, you have liberal feminists.

Then on the left, you have Marxist feminists, anarcha-feminists, and other feminists who

are critical of capitalism.

While fighting for women's rights might intuitively sound inarguably left-wing (it is, after all,

the fight to redistribute power from oppressive men to oppressed women, isn't it?), we also

need to consider whether or not a particular feminist is truly fighting for the rights

of all women.

One of the major criticisms of second-wave feminism around the 1960s was that it primarily

focused on white, usually middle-class, heterosexual, cis-gendered women.

This excluded the vast majority of women from its liberatory struggle.

So can we even say that this was a movement fighting for women's rights if it didn't actually

fight for the rights of all women - just a select few who were already relatively privileged

to begin with?

It might be more accurate to say that it was a movement that fought for the rights of a

small group of particular women, while claiming it fought for all women's rights.

This consequently alienated many other women.

The simple necessity of the existence of the category "black feminism" is a testament to

the fact that women of colour were not being adequately represented by mainstream feminism.

So can we say that second-wave feminism was truly left-wing?

Well...

I'll let you decide that one.

But these are the kinds of questions we need to ask when we're talking about people or

movements being right-wing, left-wing, or some combination of the two which lands them

somewhere in the middle.

As Jout Jout notes in her video, brocialists are those supposed leftists who seek liberation

for women, but only so far as it's comfortable for them.

For me, this is reminiscent of the naive centrist liberal's mind-set that attempts to seek "equality"

and "egalitarianism" without ever confronting and overcoming capitalism - without ever really

understanding that egalitarianism can never be achieved while under a system built on

exploitation, hierarchy, and domination.

Brocialists seem to be the opposite side of the coin on this matter.

"Who cares about sexist microaggressions?" the brocialist might say.

"I'm interested in overthrowing capitalism and instating communism.

That's the most important thing.

The other stuff can come after the revolution."

We're going to need to talk about that, and also how we can maybe bring some of these

ideas together.

But first, we need to address the most common argument that brocialists will give to downplay

criticisms of their behaviour towards women, people of colour, members of the LGBTQIA+

community, and other oppressed groups; "Identity politics is divisive and bourgeois."

How did we on the left get from the pursuit of communism, to the popularly perceived notion

of identity politics?

Obviously identity politics does not only concern the left, but also the right and centre.

But let's focus on the identity politics of the left for a moment:

While describing the emergence of identity politics in her 2014 landmark, "Identity and

Capitalism" Marie Moran notes that: "The perception in the Cold War US that the expression of

social grievances in class terms was un-American gave rise even on the political left to a

shift in political discourse from class to "oppressed minority".

But more than simply a question of language and labels, Aronowitz argues, this was also

about real prospects of political identification with others.

Whereas once communism and socialism offered universal and counter-hegemonic prospects

for political allegiances, this was no longer the case.

Instead, the only readily available "political" positions were those that were constructed

around different, ostensibly non-class-based groups, where the political impetus was to

name grievances in particularistic terms".

So we began to see identity politics emerge in the 1960s and 1970s (though its roots could

be traced back further again) with the weakening of class-based politics.

Rather than just focusing on the working class proletariat, the left began to turn its attention

more towards seemingly fragmented struggles, such as improving civil rights for people

of colour, women, people of the LGBTQIA+ community, people with disabilities, etc.

And of course there were still some diehard communists holding up the red flag and fighting

for economic justice and equality, but this struggle was greatly diminished with the de-radicalisation

of the trade union labour movement, as well as through decades of anti-communist propaganda

and fearmongering.

But with this rise of identity politics, there was a problem.

Let's take an example: Women everywhere are struggling under patriarchy.

But maybe a poor woman is struggling more than her wealthy counterpart (and no, this

is not the oppression Olympics - it's not a competition) But maybe they aren't really

fighting for the exact same things in their struggles, despite being unified under the

identity of "woman".

A good example of this would be the situation in Ireland prior to this year's introduction

of legal abortion services.

Before 2019, Irish women COULD get abortions.

They simply needed to get on a plane, take a short flight to the UK, or to the Netherlands,

and procure their abortions there.

Arrangements for this could be made from Ireland.

So, what was the problem?

Why all the fuss?

Well, you needed a significant amount of money in order to do that.

If she didn't have three or four-thousand euro sitting in her bank account, it would

be extremely difficult for an Irish woman to have an abortion.

So it was very possible for middle-class, or upper-class women to procure abortions;

although, obviously travelling abroad was inconvenient, and potentially added to the

trauma of an already extremely difficult situation.

Working class or poor women, on the other hand, often didn't have the money to get abortions.

Here we see that abortion was not merely a women's rights-focused, feminist issue, but

also a class issue.

And yet, there were many liberal feminists fighting for women's rights who weren't talking

about the class element at all.

To complicate issues further, the conversation became less about "rights" in some abstract

sense (as every woman had the right to travel abroad and procure an abortion), and more

about "access" (because not every woman had access to one).

So how do we bring these struggles together?

Enter "intersectionality", a term first used by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, which was used

as a means of connecting and understanding the various oppressions faced by groups in

society and how these oppressions compound the effects of one another.

Being a woman in a patriarchal society is already difficult, but - as we've just seen

in the case of working class Irish women prior to 2019 - it's far more difficult if you're

a poor woman.

And we can apply this to any other oppressed position.

Intersectionality started out just focusing on connecting racism and sexism, then expanded

to class, sexuality, ability, age, religion and a whole range of other areas.

So now what happens when a brocialist walks in and states that the class struggle is the

primary struggle that we should focus on overcoming?

That the other oppressions will magically resolve themselves after "the revolution"

and our communist utopia is finally instated?

Well, we need to explain to our friend that - for example - sexism existed long before

capitalism, as did racism, and could potentially last much longer if we don't address these

issues right here and right now.

While it's definitely true that capitalism exacerbates sexism, racism, and many other

forms of oppression, it's not the SOLE cause of each one.

Intersectionality offers us on the left a unique opportunity to finally reunite and

form a strong, counter-hegemonic block which stands against oppression.

So brocialists, we need to make sure we're doing all we can to strengthen the left, to

recognise the struggles of our allies, and to do everything we can to support and show

solidarity.

If you don't support intersectional feminism, you should.

On the other hand, if you are a person who truly does support feminism in theory, then

you need to try your best to also support women in practice.

I know that's easier said than done, but we've got to try.

There are so many behaviours that we need to unlearn, that it can often be overwhelming.

We might feel the urge to just throw our hands up in the air and say "F*ck this!

I tried my best to support women, now I'm just being called a brocialist!?

There's no winning."

But please don't give up so easily.

We really need to be critical of ourselves on the left.

We will always be held to a much higher standard on these issues than those on the right because

we challenge the status quo in often very disruptive ways for the powers that be, and

we need to do everything that we can to meet that challenge.

We're fighting an uphill battle, and that requires constant scrutiny and critical reflection,

both upon ourselves, and upon others in our movement.

Hell, this holding of ourselves to a higher level of account is evident even here on YouTube.

Look at the quality of the videos by Olly (Philosophy Tube), Contrapoints, hbomberguy,

etc.

They're damn-near cinematic.

They're extensively researched, well-produced, thoughtful, creative, funny, and... well...

they need to be.

Look at any of the major right-wingers on YouTube and they're just lazy (but well-funded)

reactionary, opinionated, uninformed trash.

And it's easy for them because they simply defend the status quo.

So, following the examples of the great BreadTubers, every one of us on the left needs to be the

absolute best we can be.

Brocialists, we need you onboard with that.

Let's get intersectional.

We can't afford to just wait for the proletarian revolution which will finally bring about

economic justice and equality, we need to be firing on all fronts at all times.

To reiterate the main message of this video; we all need to practice intersectionality

if we want to enact meaningful political change (especially so if we are to call ourselves

leftists).

Those who are described as brocialists need to take feminism more seriously and apply

it in their daily lives.

On the flipside, feminists need to take on-board the class struggle, too.

All of us on the left need to do our best to understand, show support, and have true

solidarity with those oppressed by any and every kind of dominating force.

We need a left that is united in our counter-hegemonic action - even if we're not united in our specific

tendencies.

Take care, folks!

Love and solidarity to everyone.

No comments:

Post a Comment