Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

shit MANarchists say

I would say that just dismissing someone as a 'manarchist' because they don't agree with you counts as negating their experiences and exerting your privileges. The very phrase 'manarchist', used as a negative, is a device for exerting (or creating) privilege, as it is apparently only women who get to use it. Worse, it seems that men are afforded no means to defend themselves from it.
That's partly the point though, isn't it? It goes beyond the occasional sharp dig in the ribs (e.g. OWM alert lol) and makes it into an identity deathmatch.
 
it's because of his comments r.e. supporting Assange - his 'sex game' business. Benn was hooked in because of a far more general and less offensive support for Assange
GG's comments were a problem because they went beyond supporting Assange to describing rape* as "poor sexual etiquette".


*In the case of Assange, obviously that's still at the point of allegation only.
 
GG's comments were a problem because they went beyond supporting Assange to describing rape* as "poor sexual etiquette".


*In the case of Assange, obviously that's still at the point of allegation only.
It is still merely alledged that JA raped anyone, but didn't GG describe the allegations as not amounting to rape. He may think he's defending someone but to me it sounds like he's already decided JA is in fact guilty.
 
It is still merely alledged that JA raped anyone, but didn't GG describe the allegations as not amounting to rape. He may think he's defending someone but to me it sounds like he's already decided JA is in fact guilty.
I think the reason that people got angry wasn't because he'd decided that JA was guilty, but that there was nothing to be guilty of i.e. that the type of rape alleged wasn't rape at all.
 
GG's comments were a problem because they went beyond supporting Assange to describing rape* as "poor sexual etiquette".


*In the case of Assange, obviously that's still at the point of allegation only.

not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).

the argument behind no-platforming him is that these views reveal him to be a predator who it is unsafe to have at student union events
 
I don't think I've ever 'gained explicit verbal consent'!! :eek:

here i'm not even joking, if you were to say that around large numbers of the young 'left' movement (NUS, anarchist/socialist/whatever organisations) you would probably be accused of rape
 
not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).

the argument behind no-platforming him is that these views reveal him to be a predator who it is unsafe to have at student union events
Well the video's here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...gations-nothing-but-bad-sexual-etiquette.html

I'm not saying that no platforming him was a great idea, btw. But his comments on that video drew very well deserved censure afaic.
 
not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).

the argument behind no-platforming him is that these views reveal him to be a predator who it is unsafe to have at student union events

So politics replaced by hysterical moralising, revolutionary desire to engage with the world replaced with creating the illussion of "safe spaces" and the reactionary politics that entails.

Fuck it, im off to get pissed to celebrate my bday and getting a minimun wage job, ill probably go to one of those unsafe nightclubs, though id be surprised if there are any women there as they are so obviously sexist.
 
here i'm not even joking, if you were to say that around large numbers of the young 'left' movement (NUS, anarchist/socialist/whatever organisations) you would probably be accused of rape

Well, there should be one along in a minute...
 
at occupy there was a fuck of a lot of white middle class men telling everyone what to do and expecting the women to do the washing up. is this what this thread is about?
 
not quite as i understand it... he disagreed with the idea that Assange had automatically committed rape through the acts which were described. in particular, he disagreed that Assange was guilty of rape because he didn't gain explicit verbal consent before he tried it on in the morning, saying that once 'the sex game' had begun people often improvise (paraphrasing).
If soneone's said yes once, they've said yes to anything.
 
at occupy there was a fuck of a lot of white middle class men telling everyone what to do and expecting the women to do the washing up. is this what this thread is about?

If I neglect to do the washing up, my other half calls me a lazy cunt. :oops:

Challenging bullshit behaviour is obviously important but the idea that people need a specialised vocabulary to do it seems like a very "activist" way of going about it.
 
Point about the AF meeting, i'm going to ask them for a copy of the discussion document, i'm hoping that the blurb was just poorly written, suggesting as it does that this might represent a new start point for the AF rather than just a debate, because even if there is significant section of the (new?) membership taking this seriously then the AF would be going backwards. I'm not convinced that they are, but will read the document. I'm coming round to nice one's point above from when the thread first started that this might be coming in off the back of new set of young anarchists who haven't seen the sort of class struggles that the older generation have and that formed their politics and so the new set concentrate on pointing their fingers inwards (iyswim).

An Anarchist Federation member over on libcom finally gave a straight, non-shifty, answer:

"there's no AF position on this stuff or anything like that. There's an ongoing discussion about it, some AF members find the privilege to be a useful concept in understanding oppression, others disagree."

So, it doesn't look as if the AF have decided to actually declare themselves American style liberal identity politics fruitloops quite yet, but it does look as if there is a "significant section of the membership taking this seriously".
 
Hopefully most of us know where to draw the line between taking non-verbal cues and taking advantage of someone. In general, it's easier to avoid misunderstandings if both participants are conscious.

I don't know the details of the particular case, since I don't find gossip about specific individuals edifying on the whole, I was just responding to the description of GG as disagreeing that JA was guily of rape because explicit verbal consent had not been gained.
 
Hopefully most of us know where to draw the line between taking non-verbal cues and taking advantage of someone. In general, it's easier to avoid misunderstandings if both participants are conscious.

i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms
 
i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms

Yep, but it depends.

Woken up on a Sunday morning by your lovely girlfriend giving you a blowjob? Nice one.

Woken up during the night because same girlfriend is drunk and just wants to use you as a dildo so she could get off? Not so good.
 
i've heard of people being woken up by sex before in positive terms

And that's down for the people involved to decide, not other people arguing the toss. If one couple are okay with one sort of practice, that doesn't mean that other people are - or should be - by default. That's one of the points in this debate that's pissing a lot of people off. That a lot of people are saying "I'd have been okay with that" or "doesn't sound like rape to me" or "other people like being woken up by sex." Those are an awful lot of generalisations that don't take into consideration the feelings of the people who were actually involved in that one case at that particular time or the precise circumstances that none of us on the outside can possibly know.
 
Thats the thing with a gamble, it either goes very very well or very very bad and if you are going to take it with someone you barely know the odds are not so in your favour.

not disagreeing with you, but back to Galloway i think all his comments showed were that he was an arsehole who was wading without any tact or thought into a minefield of an area.. not that he'd got the pathological patriarch disease and wouldn't be safe around women
 
And that's down for the people involved to decide, not other people arguing the toss. If one couple are okay with one sort of practice, that doesn't mean that other people are - or should be - by default. That's one of the points in this debate that's pissing a lot of people off. That a lot of people are saying "I'd have been okay with that" or "doesn't sound like rape to me" or "other people like being woken up by sex." Those are an awful lot of generalisations that don't take into consideration the feelings of the people who were actually involved in that one case at that particular time or the precise circumstances that none of us on the outside can possibly know.

It does mean though, that being woken up by sex in and of itself does not constitute rape.

Like I said before, I haven't read all the gossip, but if that's all that GG said then this looks like a bit of a storm in a tea cup.
 
And that's down for the people involved to decide, not other people arguing the toss. If one couple are okay with one sort of practice, that doesn't mean that other people are - or should be - by default. That's one of the points in this debate that's pissing a lot of people off. That a lot of people are saying "I'd have been okay with that" or "doesn't sound like rape to me" or "other people like being woken up by sex." Those are an awful lot of generalisations that don't take into consideration the feelings of the people who were actually involved in that one case at that particular time or the precise circumstances that none of us on the outside can possibly know.

as i say above, i agree with you on that, and that's why Galloway was being a tosser, but i was trying to use it to display the power that the identity politics clique now have over - for example - NUS
 
Back
Top Bottom