I know, I agree with several of the "suggestions", but the tone and approach is far too polarizing and close minded to make anything but enemies of anyone.
Results 21 to 40 of 283
This article was discussing sexism within that movement building process.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
I know, I agree with several of the "suggestions", but the tone and approach is far too polarizing and close minded to make anything but enemies of anyone.
This isn't to say women should be passive or not assertive....pick our battles wisely. My advice. And if said battle is made public at least provide details for the sake of argument.
I don't really understand the hostility in a lot of the responses to this, and the immediate angry defensiveness; I mean, personally I don't agree with the way that a lot of the points are presented, nor am I a feminist. But obviously the authors are addressing something that they've personally encountered within leftist groupings etc, so if you don't think what they're saying applies to you, then why not just move on, rather than hammering out some butthurt, dismissive response about how its "boss class feminism" and "liberal pseudo-psychological drivel" and "OMGz ANTI-MALE OPPRESSIONZ, HALP!!!1!1"
Because in my experience, no matter how 'politely' you attempt to address it, the responses in this thread are actually completely typical of the sort of response that a lot of women receive when they try to address grievances about the way they're being treated within predominantly male 'leftist' groupings, and its really too bad. Because I can't think of a quicker way to drive radicalizing women toward "boss class feminism" than by using opposition to "boss class feminism" as an excuse to dismiss any real grievances that they have - and, frankly, that A LOT of female 'leftists' have - about the way they're treated within predominantly-male political groupings.
women should behave how they feel and when there is sexism you should adress it and communicate about it. What you should never do is accuse and place blame for things somebody did not do but are either part of the patriachy, other men or the generalized concept of men.
This article adresses some very good points. BUT it overstates and polarizes and ignores the fact that both men and women need to cooperate towards a workable situation for both genders. That means mutual understanding and respect....and realisation that we both have sexist attitudes towards the other gender.
hindsight20/20, do you want replies to your critique?
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
Well I agree that using opposition to "boss class feminism" as an excuse to dismiss real grievances is a problem, but you fail to show that that's what is happening here.
Real grievances should be shown and dealt with, not hinted about in a text polarizing against all male activists.
For like the fifth time, the article is being written to an activist audience based on sexist experiences the writers had and their take on male conditioning within the status quo and how it effects movement building.
This doesn't make sense.
That's what the article is about.
The article was written in response to sexism experienced by the author(s)- the solution here is to realize that 'patriarchal conditioning' is a problem even within leftist movements. As 9 said, if the criticisms don't apply to you then you're on the right track and in agreement with the authors of the article.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
#FF0000, Quail, Renno, TC, Tim Finnegan
Yes...and since I am an activist (well...not right now...because of health issues...) it adresses me as a male activist.
When the article states that we are the oppressor it overstates. It overstates because it eqautes all male activists with each other, it equates all men with all other men.
When the article states we do not get to say what is sexism, we do not get to define it and we should conform to that definition lest we be sexist...it polarazes. and trivialises.
No...it is in fact what this article claims to be about. But it generalizes, trivialises and actually comes down to seize and decist. I have made an earlier post where I give indications where it does this.
And then placed sqaurely on the shoulders of all male activists.
No..actually it does not. Because I do not agree women are the ones who solely get to define sexism. Nor do I agree with the article that women are the sole victims of patriarchy or sexism. Nor do I agree that men have to be the ones to purge all behaviour which is indicated as sexist solely base on the analysis of women of their behaviour. I do think it requires understanding of both sides...and that is simply not what the article is saying or implying.
The article does however apply to me...as it does to all men in the activist community...because it does not distinguish between men. It in fact puts all men on the same heap. Now....I will accept that this may not have been what the article meant to do...but it is in fact what it is doing.
the whole first few paragraphs are in fact one big accusation. One big polemic and polarizing construct. The last two paragraphs may be what the authors actually wanted to adress...but the whole construction and rethoric does not do that.
i have something to say tho! As a dude who grew up with garden variety male chauvinist friends and no female friends, and as someone who has now as an overwhelming mayority female friends, and as a communist, i think i have an interesting point of view. i hope i am not patronizing and if i am please point out.
rather than addressing the article directly, i will address something this reminded me. once there was a libcom discussion about why anarchissm is dominated by males. why is libcom dominated by males, etcetera.
i think there are two problems in the anglosphere concerning groups that have a sort of theoretical bent. One, there is this weird anglo concept of the "nerd" as in a male role where someone gets into really archaic and esoteric things and is really intense about it. i think in the anglosphere, males have more of a tendency to get really into theoretical things, or things that you have to have a very specific, specialized knowledge. A lot of academic feminism is actually like that, very esoteric and theoretical, but by virtue of being "feminism" it will attract the loud female nerds, rather than the loud nerdy boys. therefore, marxist groups that are small and obscure and specialized (rather than mainstream left parties) have a tendency to attract people who are into archaic, specialized shit, in this sense dudes. this cultural trait is completely western and fabricated. for example, lets put at the example the ICC. i am all down with the ICC but i have some problems with it, particularly the esotericism of the language they use. however, their regional sections do have differences which have a lot to do with cultural specificities. for example, i think the british section is dominated by males, the american section (or what is left of it). however, i heard the turkish one is half and half. and the females i've met with the icc new york crowd were immigrants.
this doesnt mean the mainstream left doesnt have a ton of females. but there is a difference. first, a lot of mainstream campus wingnutty groups are for weirdos that are into veganism, animal rights, sweatshop activism, etc this shit is not tiny and theoretical, it doesnt attract the same type of demographic of people who find about obscure things. also a lot of this groups have an addentum about feminism, something which some portions of the ultraleft denigrate (and with a good reason, in the same sense i am colored and i despise ethnic based politics).
there is also a problem about behavior. i think a lot of the male nerd demographic that attracts this sort of group have this archetype of loud, robotic, and unwilling to listen. when this happens i think it hella allienates a lot of people, particularly females. i am not saying females are helpless children but i dont think females are socialized in the same way as dudes to just not give a fuck like that. in my group there are more females but to be honest the demographic of my group is a bit different and we are all really chill and we have a different approach to the ultraleft than other nerdier groups do.
Last edited by black magick hustla; 28th March 2011 at 00:42.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
also anti-male sexism is a phrase used by tools and also sometimes "minorties" including women that are into identity politics love to use use the race/sex card and not tackle the discussion honestly. i know this because ive seen homebrothers use the race card before. i am just sayin, that there is an honest way to reject feminism and it has nothing to do with chauvinism.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
I really don't see why people are getting wicked defensive on this. I read this and thought it was kinda interesting to read, but also kinda vague. I would imagine sexism within activist circles could be a problem because activists often have a sort of "I'm already enlightened" mentality, because that sort of comes with being an activist who is against sexism and racism and all that jazz.
The claim in here that because a few activist women decide you are sexist makes it true doesn't make sense, and I'll say why. TC says I'm sexist. During my debate with TC that caused her to say I'm sexist, I got a PM from a female member saying that nothing I had said was sexist at all and she stated that I am not sexist. Both users are women. Does that mean that I'm both sexist and not sexist, because I was told both by feminist women?
If you're a guy and a lot of women are telling you you're sexist then you should look in the mirror, but just because some feminists say you are sexist doesn't make it so.
Last edited by gorillafuck; 28th March 2011 at 01:50.
I called it boss-class because it in no way tries to address the serious class-particular angles of gender relations, it squeals about the gender content of boards of directors (I am sorry, but it is cross-class bullshit to relate the struggle of the female worker with the female bourgeois exploiter), and the like. It denies that there is any dialogue to be had between both men and women in activist circles. It concieves of itself in hopeful boss-relations terms.
As for your low-rent guessing about my identity as I relate to others in the group, who are presumably hurt for this or that reason perhaps due to their own male guilt, or just irritated by this passage, the fact is you do not engage any of the claims with factual disputes - rather simply the nature or existance of disagreement is taken tacitly to be proof of claims. That is idiotic and absurd.
Point of fact, I would be much more involved with local activist groupings if my girlfriend and I had not in essence walked out in protest over an activist (who was/is a poster here, I might add) telling her she couldn't question how "[he talks] to [her], because of the way [she] dresses"; that she is a "****" who "whores herself out" to the group, ad nauseum. I pointed out that if a member were to engage in outright racial slurs - which I consider tantamount to this kind of "she was asking for it" rape culture kind of behavior - they would suffer significant sanctions. No substantive action. So trust me, I don't need to be lectured about the repulsive misogyny and apologism of many male activists who care more about keeping the girls out of the Lost Boys' exclusive treehouse.
And workers should control the means of production, yet they do not. Sometimes, comrade, thinks require effort to achieve, not simply suggestion.
You can reject any individual feminism, sure, and any individual feminist, but to reject all feminism, in its entirety? What else could that be but chauvinism?
I didn't find it polarising. It was imperfect, sure, but that doesn't mean I recoiled from the screen in horror, weeping bitter tears of offended masculinity.
I've been called sexist because I don't treat women as any more special than men. I don't have a gender (I'm transgendered [MTN]), and I treat people equally. Is this somehow wrong?
That's a confusing remark. It sounds like you're asserting you are "gender blind" or something. I could see how that would offend some women, who would take what you're saying as de-legitimizing the concept of a distinct and substantive community of women and a distinct woman's struggle, and I do think its tacitly sexist to downplay that very real reality - I mean spousal abuse and rape statistics establish all you need to see for it to be fully factual.
Hope that helps, maybe.
Exactly, these were more or less my thoughts as well. I'd be very willing to consider these words but since this rose in connection to a specific set of experiences, how am I to understand the context? I feel almost like I'm listening to the aftermath of an argument I wasn't even present for.
Yeah, and the whole "stop defending yourself" thing is a little hard to swallow. I'm fully willing to accept that things I say may seem offensive without me realizing them, and I'm not trying to dismiss any offense taken as illegitimate. But c'mon, speaking in your own defense is one of the few things we actually have in this world.
To be quite frank, it sounds to me like you've come to your conclusion before embarking on analysis.
It isn't male chauvinism; its a completely legitimate political position, and its the one that communists have historically taken. Obviously it is possible for male chauvinists to hold this view as well, but its equally possible for them to be feminists of some variety or another.
