SWP expulsions and squabbles

[comrade spurski]

What political position that you didn't express did I extrapolate? I said that I thought certain things like consent and choice take place in a context. I said that sexual position is, or has been, or can be political. I didn't give you views you don't hold did I?

yes imo you did precisely that... I said

My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers

to which you responded

You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?

I used the words consenting and willing and you spoke of women not having a choice and being forced....they are not the same thing.
I was wondering why a political argument was occuring over a sexual fantasy ... I was not responding to someone saying that the missionary position could be oppressive.
Therefore you took what I said and changed it ... therefore you put views that I do not hold and did not express onto what I wrote

 

[Red Cat]

yes imo you did precisely that... I said

My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers

to which you responded

You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?

I used the words consenting and willing and you spoke of women not having a choice and being forced....they are not the same thing.
I was wondering why a political argument was occuring over a sexual fantasy ... I was not responding to someone saying that the missionary position could be oppressive.
Therefore you took what I said and changed it ... therefore you put views that I do not hold and did not express onto what I wrote

You're focusing a lot on my use of the word force when all I was trying to do was say that sexual position can be political. I was talking more of the force of expectation which may involve consent rather than physical force, of course it could have been/could be both. I have already said that I wasn't implying you wouldn't care about the use of physical force, although tbh I'd take that as a given.

 

[revol68]

Christ all this politics of sex is soo fucking 80's.

 

[J Ed]

Maybe the 80s never ended

 

[revol68]

Now I've got this atrocity of saccharine PC left liberal shit stuck in my head.

 

[comrade spurski]

You're focusing a lot on my use of the word force when all I was trying to do was say that sexual position can be political. I was talking more of the force of expectation which may involve consent rather than physical force, of course it could have been/could be both. I have already said that I wasn't implying you wouldn't care about the use of physical force, although tbh I'd take that as a given.

I am focusing on your use of words force and the term women didn't have choice.
All I said was

My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers

I have underlined the words that you responses ignored...nothing I said warranted your response to me of

So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?

so I have taken issue with it.

As for physical force ... I do not consider any force acceptable as it clearly means that someone is not consenting and willing

I have no issue with being disagreed with or with being wrong but I do object to having my views twisted or misrepresented.

 

[J Ed]

You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?

Wait, what? That bit really depends on the woman.

 

[Das Uberdog]

until the one that got him kicked out of the party...

he'd already given up his organiser career and his ambitions within the organisation were already dwindling by that point. tbf i don't know if his inspiration for fucking off the organiser role was due to disgust over the case, but even if it was. he was in his own way quite actively responsible for creating exactly the stifling, undemocratic, hysteria ridden atmosphere of leadership deference which allowed the CC to act with impunity, and made them think their farce of an investigation into Delta could be enough to cover themselves.

You say that like it's a bad thing to anathemise the AWL.

it's certainly not. but there's a different between a political and a personal issue which isn't being adhered to in this case. and it takes a lot to make me empathise with an AWLer.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

he'd already given up his organiser career and his ambitions within the organisation were already dwindling by that point. tbf i don't know if his inspiration for fucking off the organiser role was due to disgust over the case, but even if it was. he was in his own way quite actively responsible for creating exactly the stifling, undemocratic, hysteria ridden atmosphere of leadership deference which allowed the CC to act with impunity, and made them think their farce of an investigation into Delta could be enough to cover themselves.

You know the guy and I don't but this strikes me as very harsh. Yes he was probably an awful pain in the balls as a young SWP fulltime organiser, but that comes with the territory, given the nature of the role as local frontman for whatever the CC were arguing in any given week. But most people tend to grow out of that sort of behaviour when they leave that job. And ultimately, when it really came down to it, he was on the right side from very early on.

it's certainly not. but there's a different between a political and a personal issue which isn't being adhered to in this case. and it takes a lot to make me empathise with an AWLer.

What's the beef with Maltby, other than a perfectly reasonable hostility towards AWL fulltimers? All I know about him is that he's the guy who accidentally summed himself up as a cynical factional manipulator in a leaked email.

 

[Das Uberdog]

maybe it is worded harshly. but i do find his general political conduct appalling. and the way he operates in the ISN suggests to me that he hasn't made many of the moves you suggest.

beef with Maltby started because Maltby is a standard representative of the AWL doesn't go much further than a personal dislike. recently that lead him to publically wade in on accusations against the guy from NCAFC over which he knew absolutely nothing.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

So many isners saying "We need a debate but not on facebook!" yesterday/this morning. Seems they've discovered the dark side of the internet might exist after all.

 

[Red Cat]

I am focusing on your use of words force and the term women didn't have choice.
All I said was

My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers

I have underlined the words that you responses ignored...nothing I said warranted your response to me of

So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?

so I have taken issue with it.

As for physical force ... I do not consider any force acceptable as it clearly means that someone is not consenting and willing

I have no issue with being disagreed with or with being wrong but I do object to having my views twisted or misrepresented.

You seem determined to find offence where none was meant. I'm talking about internalisation of oppression, or of power relations, and how it manifests in sex, but also in giving consent, making choices. I'm really not particularly interested in sex as a subject, but I am interested in how we internalise relations. And we can do that without being moralistic or getting too into identity politics, I think.

I did NOT conflate giving consent within current conditions of inequality with a man forcing a woman physically. I really can't be clearer than that. I do find it interesting that you assume that I've twisted your words rather than you assuming you've misunderstood me.

 

[oskarsdrum]

Red Cat - what do you make of it it? My view: I like Martha Gimenez's take, e.g. http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/pesm/marx and feminism.pdf . The main problems for me with the SWP view were 1) the obsession with "men don't benefit from women's oppression" - that may or may not be the case depending on your definition of the slippery term "benefit", but it led to a total failure to appreciate how pervasively men (well, and women) are tied into it. You know, the attitude was always - when there's a big class struggle on, most of sexism will disappear. And 2) the way of placing gender / women's oppression as nothing more than "superstructural", and not appreciating at all how different forms of labour that capitalist profitability depends on are often gendered. And then, there's a lot to gender that can't be reduced down to the needs of the system as such - ideologies and discourses unfold very differently across global capitalism and that needs careful analysis too.

So everyone's predicting the ISN's demise, to mark the occassion I had an article on the website yesterday: http://internationalsocialistnetwor...a-further-comment-on-rank-and-file-strategies . The network aspect of the ISN itself has probably been under-explored, strange but true in spite of all the naval gazing we've been doing.

 

[articul8]

So many isners saying "We need a debate but not on facebook!" yesterday/this morning. Seems they've discovered the dark side of the internet might exist after all.

what the class needs right now is a full debate on the intersectional politics of race play

 

[oskarsdrum]

what the class needs right now is a full debate on the intersectional politics of race play

*insert sweary comment about new labour here*

Actually whilst it's an issue from the far margins of fighting oppression, all the same, if we've got theories then we might as well try and apply and improve them. I don't see the problem with a different type of debating on facebook instead of having less of it, myself.

 

[J Ed]

Actually whilst it's an issue from the far margins of fighting oppression

I would say that it's somewhere between branston pickle vs marmite and Beyonce vs Miley Cyrus

 

[oskarsdrum]

I would say that it's somewhere between branston pickle vs marmite and Beyonce vs Miley Cyrus

Pickle with cheese, marmite on toast, Beyonce. Easy-peasy!

 

[discokermit]

when were women forced into missionary position?
how is it more difficult to orgasm?

 

[likesfish]

I think class problems and sexism womens oppresion are two diffrent things.
Yes you should deal with both issues but they are not the same its like bringing up lGBT or racsim at every turn sometimes its appopiate other times its not.
As in a truly demented discussion I had involving LGBT friendly food????? Which even the bloke who brought the idea couldnt really articulate what he meant.

 

[frogwoman]

I think class problems and sexism womens oppresion are two diffrent things.
Yes you should deal with both issues but they are not the same its like bringing up lGBT or racsim at every turn sometimes its appopiate other times its not.
As in a truly demented discussion I had involving LGBT friendly food????? Which even the bloke who brought the idea couldnt really articulate what he meant.

how can food be lgbt friendly?

 

[J Ed]

Why are so many gay people vegetarian? I have asked gay friends that in the past and they've agreed that a disproportionate amount of gay people are but they didn't know why either!

 

[Favelado]

Why are so many gay people vegetarian? I have asked gay friends that in the past and they've agreed that a disproportionate amount of gay people are but they didn't know why either!

Horribly simplistic guess. More gay people are left-wing and being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian. I'm ready for that bit of genius to get torn to shreds though.

 

[frogwoman]

Horribly simplistic guess. More gay people are left-wing and being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian. I'm ready for that bit of genius to get torn to shreds though.

Someone i met recently (whose white) who's into all this intersectionality stuff remarked about how he was surprised that at uni so many "brown people" were supporting right-wing positions and he walked into some debate where there were lots of people with different skin colours thinking they'd all be left wing and was shocked when they weren't. I asked him how you could think that someone's skin colour would affect their political views, he said that "well, you'd expect people of colour to be more radical"



er, why? and isn't it a bit weird to notice what colour everyone is all the time? Isn't it actually a bit racist to go on about "brown people" and such like, i was taught not to notice/mention people's skin colour or draw attention to it in any way

 

[andysays]

Horribly simplistic guess. More gay people are left-wing and being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian. I'm ready for that bit of genius to get torn to shreds though.

Without wanting to tear you to shreads, is it actually the case that

1. a disproportionate amount of gay people are vegetarian?
2. more gay people are left-wing?
3. being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian?

And if I'm neither gay nor vegi, does that mean my leftie cred is shot?

 

[likesfish]

how can food be lgbt friendly?

I domt know the bloke who brought it up couldnt really explain his point either just got angry that LGBT people were not taken into account by the vegan kitchen but children were At which point a lesbian mother laid into him and it kicked off big time
" Lesbians are not proper homosexuals apprantly they are just looking for a real man to mooch off"
Now I'm a past master at the stupid and insensative but you'd have thought a black gay man an wouldnt come out with such crap

 

[Favelado]

Without wanting to tear you to shreads, is it actually the case that

1. a disproportionate amount of gay people are vegetarian?
2. more gay people are left-wing?
3. being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian?

And if I'm neither gay nor vegi, does that mean my leftie cred is shot?

1. I don't know!
2. I don't know but I'd guess yes.
3. I don't know but I'd guess yes.

Finally, no.

 

[likesfish]

Well consdiering traditional right wing groups tend to be rather down on the whole gay rights thing.
I'd imagine more gay people would tend to be more left than right.

 

[frogwoman]

Well consdiering traditional right wing groups tend to be rather down on the whole gay rights thing.
I'd imagine more gay people would tend to be more left than right.

I've met quite a few gay people who are tories.

 

[andysays]

1. I don't know!
2. I don't know but I'd guess yes.
3. I don't know but I'd guess yes.

Finally, no.

I'm glad you're able to be definitive about the last one

 

[Favelado]

I'm glad you're able to be definitive about the last one

I said it was a guess to start with.