shit MANarchists say

[sihhi]

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

Wow, are you joking?
Every single damn thing tactile or even potentially sexual be asked clearly before proceeding at all times.

 

[cesare]

Fuck off with the Assange stuff all of you. There are enough threads about him. This is a thread about anarcho-liberalism.

I wish you'd set out the ground rules before uberdog started holding up GG as an example of victim of manarchist politics.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Exhibit A)

 

[8ball]

Wow, are you joking?
Every single damn thing tactile or even potentially sexual be asked clearly before proceeding at all times.

And the missing word is?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I wish you'd set out the ground rules before uberdog started holding up GG as an example of victim of manarchist politics.

Not being psychic, I didn't know in advance that someone was going to weep at the feet of the Martyr George. Now that such weeping has commenced though, it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to ask both sides to keep that particular row to one of the endless threads about that particular row.

 

[cesare]

Not being psychic, I didn't know in advance that someone was going to weep at the feet of the Martyr George. Now that such weeping has commenced though, it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to ask both sides to keep that particular row to one of the endless threads about that particular row.

Fair enough!

 

[Fez909]

I hate this word already. I seriously hope it doesn't catch on.

 

[8ball]

I hate this word already. I seriously hope it doesn't catch on.

As if 'hipster' wasn't enough.

Though 'anarcho-liberalism' is new to me, too.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I hate this word already. I seriously hope it doesn't catch on.

Personally, I'd make using the phrase "check your privilege" an instant expulsion offence if the Anarchist Federation ever took the unusual decision to put me in charge of their organisation.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Not being psychic, I didn't know in advance that someone was going to weep at the feet of the Martyr George. Now that such weeping has commenced though, it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to ask both sides to keep that particular row to one of the endless threads about that particular row.

no-one's weeping - i was actually laughing originally. two forces i have no sympathy for eating one another.

i do think the Assange case is relevent to this though, because at the heart of this identity crap bollocks it's all about sex. sexual identity, sexual abuse, etc... basically everyone is a sexual victim of some kind other than straight white men. mixed in with this is a completely subjective idea of self-definition. there is no objective truth, or at least the objective truth is made from the subjective perspective of a sexual victim.

the point about Galloway was the he tried to disagree with the subjective perspective of a pre-determined sexual victim in favour of a straight white guy. regardless of what he said or whether or not it was right - none of that was important in why he was no-platformed. he was no platformed because he disagreed, not because of why - same goes for Tony Benn

 

[Vintage Paw]

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.

I don't think it's just the GG stuff though. It came on the back of an endless stream of shit from plenty of other people, and it's somewhat not surprising that a 'personality' like GG saying something similar would be the thing that broke the camel's back.

I'd also say that while it's perfectly true to say that in and of itself, as you say, being woken up by sex does not necessarily constitute rape, many are using that as a way to completely disregard the idea that it ever could. And that's the problem. Just because, as I said, one couple in one set of circumstances might see it as part of their consensual sexual relationship, it's perfectly possible for the same act to have a completely different meaning in another context with another couple. So this isn't about saying "being woken up by sex = rape," this is about saying that it can be - as can any other kind of sexual behaviour, awake or not - and much of the anger seems to stem from people outright coming out and saying "nope, not rape, I should know, my girlfriend wakes me up with blowjobs regularly."

 

[Nigel Irritable]

i do think the Assange case is relevent to this though, because at the heart of this identity crap bollocks it's all about sex.

It isn't really. The particular identity politics discourse we are talking about here has its origins in race.

 

[Vintage Paw]

It isn't really. The particular identity politics discourse we are talking about here has its origins in race.

It might have its origins in race, but it appears to be being used in a feminist framework now.

 

[Das Uberdog]

that's as may be, 'manarchism' isn't about race though

 

[cesare]

It might have its origins in race, but it appears to be being used in a feminist framework now.

Otherwise, presumably, it'd be called Ranarchism. Thus pissing everyone off even more.

 

[sihhi]

And the missing word is?

*must* . Everything must be asked. You can't ask if someone is asleep. That's it. Galloway knew what he was doing - sorry if this is old hat.

 

[Das Uberdog]

'whitearchists'

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I don't think it's just the GG stuff though. It came on the back of an endless stream of shit from plenty of other people, and it's somewhat not surprising that a 'personality' like GG saying something similar would be the thing that broke the camel's back.

I'd also say that while it's perfectly true to say that in and of itself, as you say, being woken up by sex does not necessarily constitute rape, many are using that as a way to completely disregard the idea that it ever could. And that's the problem. Just because, as I said, one couple in one set of circumstances might see it as part of their consensual sexual relationship, it's perfectly possible for the same act to have a completely different meaning in another context with another couple. So this isn't about saying "being woken up by sex = rape," this is about saying that it can be - as can any other kind of sexual behaviour, awake or not - and much of the anger seems to stem from people outright coming out and saying "nope, not rape, I should know, my girlfriend wakes me up with blowjobs regularly."

I think it is precisely this lack of nuance that gets people's back up about "Manarchism".

Perhaps because it seems to be creating simple checklists about complex human interactions...

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Also - forgive me for stating the obvious, but how mental is it that Manchester AF would do a checklist of privilege and not even mention class?

 

[8ball]

I'd also say that while it's perfectly true to say that in and of itself, as you say, being woken up by sex does not necessarily constitute rape, many are using that as a way to completely disregard the idea that it ever could.

That seems equally bizarre, as if to say it's only rape if you get started while the person is awake.
It's as bizarre as the 'short skirt' or the 'she came to my flat of her own accord' defences, and doesn't look to me like the description of what GG said, which, again, I don't know in full but seemed to hinge on explicit verbal consent.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It might have its origins in race, but it appears to be being used in a feminist framework now.

It's being used across all forms of identity politics now, by useless liberals. But it has its origins in race and so, Das Uberdog's contention that this stuff is all ultimately about sex isn't quite right.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Regardless of the 'proper' politics of it all, I don't think it's surprising that privilege is a popular concept, if you try to imagine for a second what it might be like to feel a constant tide of shit coming at you, whereby men in the media, in government, in politics, and even in your own political organisations, keep telling you what you are allowed to view as rape or not (for example, since we were talking about Assange). It might not be particularly useful in the long run, and it might even be harmful in terms of identity politics, but it seems to be, in part, a way of grabbing onto something - anything - that can give you back a little bit of agency, and trying to combat something that is equally as harmful.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but neither does letting the first wrong carry on shitting all over you. So what's the answer? I'm not arguing that the rather narrow obsession with 'privilege politics' should be supported, but rather that it's an understandable tool people are utilising since there doesn't appear to be anything else. Clearly if there are other options, they need to be made more accessible.

 

[cesare]

I think it is precisely this lack of nuance that gets people's back up about "Manarchism".

Perhaps because it seems to be creating simple checklists about complex human interactions...

I must admit that I've only just started reading the first of the checklists from the AFED website, so it might be a bit early to comment. But so far it does seem to be stating a lot of the obvious.

Mind you, the other way of looking at it is that if the obvious needs stating, maybe it's not so obvious at all.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Also - forgive me for stating the obvious, but how mental is it that Manchester AF would do a checklist of privilege and not even mention class?

especially as class is comfortably the privilege most abused by left-wing activists, male or female.

 

[8ball]

*must* . Everything must be asked. You can't ask if someone is asleep. That's it. Galloway knew what he was doing - sorry if this is old hat.

Do both partners need to ask out loud or just the strongest?
If it's not obvious which is the strongest do you have to have a fight first to find out?

 

[cesare]

That seems equally bizarre, as if to say it's only rape if you get started while the person is awake.
It's as bizarre as the 'short skirt' or the 'she came to my flat of her own accord' defences, and doesn't look to me like the description of what GG said, which, again, I don't know in full but seemed to hinge on explicit verbal consent.

Leave it with the Assange stuff, pls, or go and watch the video I linked to or something.

 

[Das Uberdog]

even the racial underpinnings have been swamped by sexualised elements - like in one of revol69's posts earlier, the woman dressed up as a native American is apparently not only mocking their culture but more importantly, sexualising it

 

[8ball]

Leave it with the Assange stuff, pls, or go and watch the video I linked to or something.

I was answering VP, who's rattled your cage?

 

[SpookyFrank]

This identity politics stuff is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand you've got certain people refusing to be defined by their sexuality or gender, and then you've got people, in some cases the same people, telling everyone that because they're white or male or whatever that they are by nature oppressive towards others and that they are powerless to change their ways of their own free will.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

even the racial underpinnings have been swamped by sexualised elements - like in one of revol69's posts earlier, the woman dressed up as a native American is apparently not only mocking their culture but more importantly, sexualising it

I think that there's a good argument that the image is sexualising native americian indian culture (and is adding to the completely fucked up visual barrage of imagery of idealised women in the media).

Blaming the model in the picture ("but this DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON") completely ignores the processes behind this though.