'Anarchism and sex' article

319 posts / 0 new
Last post
Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 24 2006 00:24
Grace wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
so do Grace's points trump all of our male ones?

Naturally ;)

Pimpette!!!!

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 24 2006 00:30
James Woolley wrote:
No, I believe that most workers have been indoctrinated to the extent that they don't feel that they are exploited.

If they do feel exploited, what more do we need to create a worker's revolution? If they feel they are exploited, they would find some way to overcome this.

Just an codicil to this post: if workers recognise that they are exploited and do nothing about it, then again it is part of the indoctrination system that convinces them that they cannot take things into their own hands and organise to abolish the state, take control of their own work etc.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 24 2006 00:36
James Woolley wrote:
Just an codicil to this post: if workers recognise that they are exploited and do nothing about it, then again it is part of the indoctrination system that convinces them that they cannot take things into their own hands and organise to abolish the state, take control of their own work etc.

i think reducing social psychology to 'indoctrination' is really oversimplifying and the kind of reasoning that leads to the word 'sheeple' neutral

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Nov 24 2006 00:38
James Woolley wrote:
No, I believe that most workers have been indoctrinated to the extent that they don't feel that they are exploited.

Seeing as being exploited simply means not getting the full returns to your labour, feeling exploited simply means feeling like you should get paid more. And every worker I've ever met bar a few high end financial service workers felt they should get paid more.

Quote:
If they do feel exploited, what more do we need to create a worker's revolution?

A worker's revolutionary movement.

Quote:
If they feel they are exploited, they would find some way to overcome this.

Gulp!!!

What do you think the labour party, the trade unions, the welfare state, 'communism' are? They are the residues of a failed attempt to 'overcome this'.

What do you think this website is? It's an attempt by workers to contribute to building a revolutionary workers movement capable of overcoming this.

Abolishing capitalism and all forms of exploitation, thereby putting an end to thousands of years of class society and ushering in an age of anarcho-communism is not as easy at it seem.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 24 2006 00:44
georgestapleton wrote:
What do you think the labour party, the trade unions, the welfare state, 'communism' are? They are the residues of a failed attempt to 'overcome this'.

Yes, but these were not specifically the workers themselves taking control, they were authority trying to 'help' the workers... even the trade unions to some extent.

georgestapleton wrote:
What do you think this website is? It's an attempt by workers to contribute to building a revolutionary workers movement capable of overcoming this.

... in that case, I think I had better leave because I am not a worker and therefore would be of no help in building a revolutionary workers' movement.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 24 2006 00:46
James Woolley wrote:
That is true, the patriarchy does affect men - but that is not a feminist issue.

Uh, yes it is. Feminism without also addressing what men go through is ridiculous. And who are you to tell me what is and isn't a feminist issue? It is all up to us women, after all.

James Woolley wrote:
Well, they are victims. Unless you feel that they aren't oppressed.

Oh don't play simple with me, you know exactly the mentality I'm talking about. You've presented them as a different kind of victim, somehow more victimised, than working men, which is definitely not always the case.

Perhaps as a man you can't understand on a fundamental level how patronised I, as a woman, feel by your attitudes.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 24 2006 00:48
revol68 wrote:
yet you clearly haven't grasped the fact that women aren;t some unified voice on the matter,

Yes, women experience different forms of patriarchal oppression.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 24 2006 00:50

you're on a windup? :? women in general as a homogenous block?

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Nov 24 2006 00:54
James Woolley wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
What do you think the labour party, the trade unions, the welfare state, 'communism' are? They are the residues of a failed attempt to 'overcome this'.

Yes, but these were not specifically the workers themselves taking control, they were authority trying to 'help' the workers... even the trade unions to some extent.

Are you taking the mick?

I mean you do know that that is complete and utter bollocks don't you? The workers movment was 'authority' trying to help the workers. The workers movement was no different to say the poor laws, or charitable societies. I mean it's so completely counter-intuitive, never mind non-factual. You must have some reason for saying something so bizarre but I can't fathom what it is.

Please tell me that was meant as a joke.

Quote:
georgestapleton wrote:
What do you think this website is? It's an attempt by workers to contribute to building a revolutionary workers movement capable of overcoming this.

... in that case, I think I had better leave because I am not a worker and therefore would be of no help in building a revolutionary workers' movement.

and please tell me this is also meant as a joke.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 24 2006 00:56
Grace wrote:
Uh, yes it is. Feminism without also addressing what men go through is ridiculous. And who are you to tell me what is and isn't a feminist issue? It is all up to us women, after all.

From Wikipedia: 'Feminism is a collection of social theories, political movements and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerned with the liberation of women.'

I am amazed you think feminism is just as much about men. It's a women's movement... sure I discuss it but I don't take part in activism and so forth. As far as I am concerned it is a women's movement, for women and by women.

Grace wrote:
Oh don't play simple with me, you know exactly the mentality I'm talking about. You've presented them as a different kind of victim, somehow more victimised, than working men, which is definitely not always the case.

It is hard to say who is 'more' oppressed. And so far, I have said nothing that implies women are more oppressed, simply that the form of oppression they experience is different for that of workers.

Grace wrote:
Perhaps as a man you can't understand on a fundamental level how patronised I, as a woman, feel by your attitudes.

I am sorry you feel this way.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 24 2006 01:00
georgestapleton wrote:
Are you taking the mick?

I mean you do know that that is complete and utter bollocks don't you? The workers movment was 'authority' trying to help the workers.

I understand 'workers movement' to be a movement ran by workers to organise themselves against the state and capitalists. If this definition is wrong, I am sorry and please correct me.

georgestapleton wrote:
and please tell me this is also meant as a joke.

It's not a joke. I'm not a worker.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Nov 24 2006 01:00

I'm off to bed. And sorry James if we seem harsh I know you are a new poster and wouldn't like to see you be scared away but at least think about some of what is being said on this thread.

Oiche mhaith.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 24 2006 01:05
James Woolley wrote:
Grace wrote:
Uh, yes it is. Feminism without also addressing what men go through is ridiculous. And who are you to tell me what is and isn't a feminist issue? It is all up to us women, after all.

From Wikipedia: 'Feminism is a collection of social theories, political movements and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerned with the liberation of women.'

I am amazed you think feminism is just as much about men. It's a women's movement... sure I discuss it but I don't take part in activism and so forth. As far as I am concerned it is a women's movement, for women and by women.

Jaaaaysus. How are women ever going to be equal to men if men aren't included in feminism? If it's set up as us-against-them, that's about as far from equality or harmony as one can get. Equally why would any decent woman want to be 'liberated' if men are not? As far as I'm concerned men are very important to feminism, but maybe that's 'cause I'm a hippy lets-love-everyone kinda type.

James Woolley wrote:
Grace wrote:
Oh don't play simple with me, you know exactly the mentality I'm talking about. You've presented them as a different kind of victim, somehow more victimised, than working men, which is definitely not always the case.

It is hard to say who is 'more' oppressed. And so far, I have said nothing that implies women are more oppressed, simply that the form of oppression they experience is different for that of workers.

'Women' as opposed to 'workers'? Care to explain that?

James Woolley wrote:
Grace wrote:
Perhaps as a man you can't understand on a fundamental level how patronised I, as a woman, feel by your attitudes.

I am sorry you feel this way.

I'm very sorry you think that way.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Nov 24 2006 01:07
Grace wrote:
James Woolley wrote:
Grace wrote:
Perhaps as a man you can't understand on a fundamental level how patronised I, as a woman, feel by your attitudes.

I am sorry you feel this way.

I'm very sorry you think that way.

I am sorry you feel sorry that he feels sorry that you feel that way.

(Had to be said, now I am off to bed).

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 24 2006 01:08

And I'm sorry that you're sorry that.... etc, etc, etc....

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 24 2006 01:10

Sorry!

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 24 2006 01:10
James Woolley wrote:
I understand 'workers movement' to be a movement ran by workers to organise themselves against the state and capitalists. If this definition is wrong, I am sorry and please correct me.

well trade unions and the like were an expression of workers' struggle which congealed and were turned against it - the things you list were born of the workers movement if only as means by the state/capital to contain it.

James Woolley wrote:
It's not a joke. I'm not a worker.

we have a pretty broad definition so you never know tongue

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 24 2006 01:24
James Woolley wrote:
your second: sex work and pornography certainly do dehumanize and objectify women...because it encourages men not to view women as humans, but as permissive things waiting to dominated by means of defilement.

"Defilement"?

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 24 2006 01:25
madashell wrote:
James Woolley wrote:
your second: sex work and pornography certainly do dehumanize and objectify women...because it encourages men not to view women as humans, but as permissive things waiting to dominated by means of defilement.

"Defilement"?

Sex is naughty dontcha know.

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 24 2006 01:26
Grace wrote:
Jaaaaysus. How are women ever going to be equal to men if men aren't included in feminism?

Why do you think men have to be included in the feminist movement? It seems bizarre to me that you're suggesting women can only achieve equality with men if they have men's help!

Grace wrote:
If it's set up as us-against-them, that's about as far from equality or harmony as one can get.

Well that's how the class war is proposed as: 'us against them', and yet presumably if a revolution were to happen anarchists wouldn't execute the bosses, so the bosses would have to lose their position of power and assimilate with everyone else.
And so this is the same principle: marriage would stop, sexism, sex attacks etc. would stop and males would be in harmony with women.

Grace wrote:
Equally why would any decent woman want to be 'liberated' if men are not?

That's very true: which is why anarcha-feminists such as Emma Goldman supported the overall anarchist movement.

Grace wrote:
'Women' as opposed to 'workers'? Care to explain that?

Women refers to the sex-specific oppression and exploitation they receive, and by workers I mean the proletariat and needless to say the specific kind of exploitation and oppression they receive.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 24 2006 01:26
madashell wrote:
"Defilement"?

you know, pollution their purity roll eyes

answers.com wrote:
The noun defilement has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the state of being polluted

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Nov 24 2006 01:41
James Woolley wrote:
Grace wrote:
Jaaaaysus. How are women ever going to be equal to men if men aren't included in feminism?

Why do you think men have to be included in the feminist movement? It seems bizarre to me that you're suggesting women can only achieve equality with men if they have men's help!

That's not what I mean at all, but I can see how it might have come across that way. I just don't see it as being an issue solely about women any more. Of course there are things that are more to do with women, but if men just act as though it's none of their business, and push it aside as a problem 'for women', then I don't think as much progress would be made as there is potential for. Seeing as a lot of issues stem from male attitudes and the pressures put upon men because of their gender, why do you not think it's important that men should be included?

James Woolley wrote:
Grace wrote:
If it's set up as us-against-them, that's about as far from equality or harmony as one can get.

Well that's how the class war is proposed as: 'us against them', and yet presumably if a revolution were to happen anarchists wouldn't execute the bosses, so the bosses would have to lose their position of power and assimilate with everyone else.
And so this is the same principle: marriage would stop, sexism, sex attacks etc. would stop and males would be in harmony with women.

Sorry but I happen to think that encouraging the division of the working class along gender lines is pretty dumb.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 24 2006 03:13
Serge Forward wrote:
Spare Rib was the main British feminist magazine in the late 70s/early 80s. There was a fair bit of sisterhood/victimhood in it, anyone with a dick was a rapist (or a rapist waiting to happen), porn was EVIL, Lesbian fist fucking was maybe ok, while hetero penetration was oppression, etc, etc, etc.

OK, so I've exaggerated somewhat....

lol grin

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Nov 24 2006 12:50
Grace wrote:
Sorry but I happen to think that encouraging the division of the working class along gender lines is pretty dumb.

I mean division on the feminist issue, not on the issue of workers being liberated.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 24 2006 14:09
James Woolley wrote:
Grace wrote:
Sorry but I happen to think that encouraging the division of the working class along gender lines is pretty dumb.

I mean division on the feminist issue, not on the issue of workers being liberated.

Despite the fact you claim that feminism is only an issue for women, not men, you seem to be happy to talk about it lots and tell other people that they're not good "anarcha feminists."

Do you think racism is not an issue for white people either?

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Nov 24 2006 15:08
James Woolley wrote:

Well that's how the class war is proposed as: 'us against them'

Ahhhh here's your problem,.

He doesn't know It's Class.

Workers all have one thing in common - they produce(/serve). Capitalists all have one thing in common - they take money made by other peoples labour. James Wooley, do you think that ALL women and ALL men have something in common with their sex equivalent to this, and thus justify an 'us against them' approach?

I know it seems cool to analyse gender in the same way as class, but gender's really got more in common with a sociological definition of class (which makes a distinction between working and middle class)than a good one (working/capitalist)

Some workers have it better than others (men, middle class, white people), but its as workers that we have real revolutionary potential. James, how do you think the revolution will happen?

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 24 2006 15:24
John. wrote:
Do you think racism is not an issue for white people either?

You have an uncanny knack of hitting nails on heads brother.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 24 2006 15:35
revol68 wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
John. wrote:
Do you think racism is not an issue for white people either?

You have an uncanny knack of hitting nails on heads brother.

As much as I agree with the sentiment I'm afraid it doesn't really hit the nail on the head. James is not talking about sexism he is talking about feminism and he defines feminism as a womens struggle (rightly or wrongly). So to accurately compare it to racism you would have to say ask is the black power movement for white people too.

No, an equivalent would be "anti-racism".

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 24 2006 15:40
revol68 wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
John. wrote:
Do you think racism is not an issue for white people either?

You have an uncanny knack of hitting nails on heads brother.

As much as I agree with the sentiment I'm afraid it doesn't really hit the nail on the head. James is not talking about sexism he is talking about feminism and he defines feminism as a womens struggle (rightly or wrongly).

My example was to demonstrate that his definition was wrong. His definition is utterly wrong and harmful, and so we shouldn't have a debate based on the assumption that it's correct.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 24 2006 16:52
Quote:
Why do you think men have to be included in the feminist movement?

Let's see now, if the function of women is to fight patriarchy, but men should have nothing to do with it, should I stop telling guys who talk about women as 'a gash' to shut up? Or perhaps when a friend of mine tells me she isn't a feminist because women are equal now, should I just let that go?

The circumstances in which patriarchy should be challenged far outstrip a simple 'women vrs men' situation. If men don't challenge the behaviour of their peers outside of interactions with women, the only outcome of the gender war you seem intent on preparing is permanent division - especially if women 'win' because either gender roles are redefined with women as dominant, or you end up with a permanent chauvinist undercurrent fuelled by resentment wherever women aren't there (in numbers - in a one-to-one situation a man might win through superior debate/physical strength as much as vice versa) to enforce.

edit: And comparing class war to gender war is just ridiculous. One is the winning of equality for all, the other maintains systems of hierarchy while dividing the working class along gender lines. As John says, would that be sensible if you used the word race instead?