|
Post by Mitch on Sept 10, 2004 13:26:08 GMT
Just recently I read two Anarch-Feminist Statements by Red Rosa and Black Maria - Black Rose Anarcho-Feminists, and whilst I was reading this I was reminded of a recent Marxist Forum laid on by the SWerps locally entitled:
RAGE AGAINST THE SYSTEM: WOMEN ON THE FRONT LINE AGAINST BLAIR, WAR AND CAPITALISM
I thought at the time that this would be better put:
RAGE AGAINST MALE LEFTIST GROUPS - DON'T TELL ME I'M OPPRESSED, I AM THE REVOLUTION!!
Anyway, that's another post! I thought I would share a section of this statement as it really struck a chord with me about how movements miss individual women's struggles, of which there are many amongst me and my friends round these parts in Nelson:-
"BLOOD OF THE FLOWER: AN ANARCHA-FEMINIST STATEMENT
We are an independent collective of women who feel that anarchism is the logically consistent expression of feminism.
We believe that each woman is the only legitimate articulator of her own oppression. Any woman, regardless of previous political involvement knows only too intimately her own oppression, and hence, can and must define what form her liberation will take.
Why are many women sick and tired of 'movements'? Our answer is that the fault lies with the nature of movements, not with the individual women. Political movements, as we have known them, have separated our political activities from our personal dreams of liberation, until either we are made to abandon our dreams as impossible or we are forced to drop out of the movement because we hold steadfastly to our dreams. As true anarchists and as true feminists, we say DARE TO DREAM THE IMPOSSIBLE, AND NEVER SETTLE FOR LESS THAN TOTAL TRANSLATION OF THE IMPOSSIBLE INTO REALITY.
There have been two principle forms of action in the women's liberation movement. One has been the small, local, volitionally organised consciousness-raising group, which at best has been a very meaningful mode of dealing with oppression from a personal level and, at worst, never evolved beyond the level of a therapy group.
The other principle mode of participation has been large, bureaucratized groups which have focused their activities along specific policy lines, taking great pains to translate women's oppression into concrete, single-issue programmes. Women in this type of group often have been involved in formal leftist politics for some time, but could not stomach the sexism within other leftist groups. However, after reacting against the above-mentioned attitude of leftist males, many women with formal political orientations could not accept the validity of what they felt were the 'therapy groups' of their suburban sisters; yet they themselves still remained within the realm of male-originated Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist rhetoric, and continued to use forms of political organisation employed by the male leftist groups they were reacting against. The elitism and centralisation of the old male left thereby has found, and already poisoned parts of the women's movement with the attitude that political sophistication must mean 'building' a movement around single issue programmes, thereby implying that 'we must be patient until the masses' consciousness is raised to our level.' How condescending to assume that an oppressed person must be told that she is oppressed! How condescending to assume that her consciousness will grow only by plodding along, from single-issue to next single issue.
In the past decade or more, women of the left were consistently intimidated out of fighting for our own liberation, avoiding the obvious fact that all women are an oppressed group. We are so numerous and dispersed that we have identified ourselves erroneously as members of particular classes on the basis of the class of 'our men', our fathers or our husbands. So women of the left regarding ourselves as middle-class more than oppressed women, have been led to neglect engaging in our own struggle as our primary struggle. Instead, we have dedicated oursleves to fight on behalf of other oppressed peoples, thus alienating ourselves from our own plight. Many say that this attitude no longer exists in the women's moement, that it originated only from the guilt trip of the white middle class male, but even today women in autonomous women's movements speak of the need to organise working class women, without concentrating on the need to organise oursleves - as if we were already beyond that level. This does not mean (if we insist first and foremost on freeing ourselves) that we love our oppressed sisters any the less; on the contrary, we feel that the best way for us to be true to all liberation struggles is to accept and deal directly with our own oppression".
I am acting on impulse, abandoning those restrictions that society wants to put on me - movements are removed from me, but I would affirm also like the Black Rose Anarcho-Feminists that 'each woman joining in struggle is the Revolution. WE ARE THE REVOLUTION'.
Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Sept 11, 2004 4:26:47 GMT
Thank you sister...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 16, 2004 9:53:27 GMT
Hello, it's rather lonely in here, so thought I'd throw something out there! Just recently in the Anti-casualisation/unscrupulous employers section on this web forum someone posted up the article below.
It was also printed in a Northern Anarchist journal. I have found it rather interesting that no anarchists have shouted outrage concerning this article below, as I personally found it offensive and when asked to write something for this journal could not do it, because anything that contains this kind of sexism means, simply, that my sisters and I are not perceived as 'equal' partners in the revolution. I wonder what Sue Machins made of this if she has read it.
Peggy Kornegger sums it up well for me in the following:
"If we want to 'bring down the patriarchy', we need to talk about anarchism, to know exactly what it means, and to use that framework to transform ourselves and the structure of our daily lives. Feminism doesn't mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no corporate power and no Presidents. ...... Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy - economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist revolution". (Anarchism: The Feminist Connection, by Peggy Kornegger, in 'Quiet Rumours, p.27, 2002, AKPress.
The anarchist male who produced this representation of events below seems to be in his own private fantasy land. I challenge and reject this sexism as I have challenged and rejected such attitudes of oppression all my life in many areas - tenants associations, education and university, on Burnley factory floors, in activism and against male orientated Trot groups and now within anarchism. It's got to be as important to challenge oppression within anarchism as well. The connection between anarchism and feminism - do you not see it?
"Sue Machins’ Sexy Cross-examination!
Seldom have I seen such a sexy crossexamination of witnesses as that of Ms Sue Machins’ for the locked-out Manchester electricians. She was like Charles .....’ Madam Def*ge knitting while the guillotine fell on the Fahey clan of sub-contracting bosses.
The Fahey family from Cheltenham, which runs DAF Electrical Contractors, were left gasping in the witness box. The plumy voice of the boisterous blond Madam Machin was a joy to listen to on a June afternoon in the hot Tribunal room, full of local electricians, as she sprung trap after trap for each of the Fahey brothers. Ms Machin, I understand, was formerly in Chambers in London, but has now moved back home to a Manchester Chambers, where she is regarded as a bit of a radical bobby dazzler. Certainly she charmed us all with her silver tongue like ‘one of the lads’. She threw questions with the deadly accuracy of a dart thrower in a Tap-Room . She had the Fahey brothers leaping around like a crowd of Hibernian Calibans as if tickled ‘With a raven’s feather from an unwholesome fen’, until they were all tied-up in knots and fit for nowt. She flew at them like Prospero’s Ariel and, ‘Before you could say, Come and Go, And breathe twice; and cry So, so; Each one, tripping on his toe…’ "
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Nov 16, 2004 16:32:11 GMT
I am editor of NORTHERN ANARCHIST JOURNAL and the quote you give us from the Tempest ect, did not appear in a NORTHERN anarchist journal. I think you are referring to something which appeared in the 'NORTH WEST COWBOY', which is a rank & file bulletin of the Manchester electricians and builders. The editorial panel to which Jim Petty belongs is totally separate from the 'COWBOY' - WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT MEMBERSHIP PANEL OF PEOPLE ON THE BUILDING SITES AND IN THE UNIONS.
JIM WAS EXPELLED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FIT IN! AND THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
I am sure that Mitch has made a genuine mistake in mixing the Cowboy with the Northern Anarchists, and would not wish to expel Jim on the basis of an error such as this. There are many issues here worthy of discussion, but sexism, racism and political correctness are not on this particular agenda, except perhaps ageism - and that is something which has just occurred to me.
The only body which admits to sponsoring the NORTH WEST COWBOY is the Manchester Social Forum and through the local Social Forum the northern anarchists, SolFed, AF, and other activists are behind the Cowboy. The reason for this is that the other sponsors fear the danger of victimisation on the building sites, expulsions and violence against individual workers and branches. I am sure that Mitch would not wish to see other bodies expose themselves to these risks.
As for the barrister Sue Machin who I met at the Industrial Tribunal, we await her response to the Cowboy piece, as I'm sure the electricians after her last sparkling performance would want to use her sevices again.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 16, 2004 17:58:26 GMT
Did you or did you not write that article Brian?
THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS GRIPE WHICH I TAKE UP WITH YOU THE AUTHOR OF THIS PIECE AND JIM'S EXPULSION!
Like Octoberlost, I have no comment to make on this until I know the full facts!
Forgive my confusion on references, but my complaint on sexism remains. I still do not appear to have a clear explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Brighid on Nov 18, 2004 13:34:16 GMT
I just wanted to support Mitch's statement about the outrageously sexist article in the 'Cowboy'. I, too, read this piece with horror - though it was so badly written it took me a while to work out that the writer was actually supporting the barrister he was describing. Trivialising women's actions by using adjectives and descriptions that focus on their (assumed) sexuality - in this case I think the projected fanatasy of the writer - is an old patriarchal trick. I really don't expect to see this turning up in material written by supposedly anarchist propagandists. So don't worry Mitch - you are not the only anarchist disgusted with that particular article!
For the record, SolFed most certainly does not 'sponsor' this sort of crap. I am a member of SolFed and I had never heard of this publication before seeing it in print and reading the article.
(By the way, you can be forgiven for thinking it was something put out by Northern Anarchist Network; the style does look strikingly familiar, especially given their unwittingly Freudian references to 'Cock' 's 'O the North and oddly, in some back issues, 'cuckolds'. I think gender issues have a long way to go in some 'anarchist' quarters, frankly).
In solidarity, Brighid x
|
|
|
Post by Brighid on Nov 18, 2004 13:37:08 GMT
Erm...re my previous, I think the board censored one of the words. Pse make that 'C0ck' of the North!
Brighid
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 18, 2004 14:26:16 GMT
Lol...thanks for your support of Mitch Brighid..don't worry about that silly censor!!!
I'm sorry I haven't been more vocal about this myself Mitch, I really feel that editors/writers in magazines ought to be more careful in their wording/rewriting of articles in order to avoid appearing sexist even if that was not the intention...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 21, 2004 22:53:25 GMT
Estimadas companeras, Thanks for your support sisters. I'm currently reading a pamphlet on 'Mujeres Libres', Organizing Women During the Spanish Revolution. I'm presuming 'Mujeres Libres' means 'Free women'. Rather interesting, ....."Do you live in a town where women are relegated to a position of insignificance (from a Mujeres Libres pamphlet written in 1937)......" Oh yes, more later. Best Mitch x
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 22, 2004 0:25:14 GMT
Hehehe...has anybody noticed the google ad above these posts:
Steamy, saucy, sexy!!! asian site...LOL..not quite the outcome that we wanted on this 'non-sexist' site!!!
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 22, 2004 0:26:38 GMT
Dammit...it's gone now!!! aint that just like the...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 22, 2004 10:29:44 GMT
urr ..... it's back!!
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 24, 2004 11:56:20 GMT
On Building Groups of 'Free Women'.
"Do you live in a town where women are relegated to a position of insignificance, dedicated exclusively to housework and the care of children? No doubt, many times you have thought about this with some disgust, and when you've noticed the freedom which your brothers, or the men of your households, enjoy, you have felt the hardship of being a woman ....
Well, against all this which you have had to suffer comes 'Mujeres Libres'. We want you to have the same freedom as your brothers ... we want your voice to be heard with the same authority as your father's. We want you to attain that independent life you have wanted without worrying about what people will say.
But, realize, that all this requires your effort; that these things don't come for nothing; and that, in order to achieve them, you need the assistance of others. You need others to be concerned with the same things as you, you need to help them, as they will help you. In a single word, you must struggle communally; which is the same as saying, you must create a Group (Agrupacion) of women".
(A passage from a pamphlet entitled "How to Organize a Mujeres Libres Group", written in Spain, probably in 1937).
Mujeres Libres on Anarchist men.......
"In their view, although anarchist men may have "talked a good line" while out on the speakers platforms, most did not change their behavior toward women on a day-to-day basis. 'It's true that we have struggled together,' one woman recalled saying to her male comrades, 'but you are always the leaders, and we are always the followers. Whether in the streets or at home. We are little better than slaves!'. Mujeres Libres aimed both to overcome the barriers of ignorance and inexperience which prevented women from participating as equals in the struggle for a better society, and to confront the dominance of men within the anarchist movement itself".
(Taken from a DAM [Direct Action Movement] pamphlet entitled: 'Mujeres Libres. Organizing Women during the Spanish Revolution'. Published by DAM in 1987)
Interestingly on the back of this pamphlet are the aims and principles of DAM which read well on paper. Hey up, lads and lasses, here's point 7:
7. We oppose racism, sexism, militarism and all attitudes and institutions that stand in the way of equality and the right of all people everywhere to control their own lives and the environment".
Aims and principles good - action and following through in the everyday even better. I found the Dam 8 point aims and principles on the back of this pamphlet really good - clear, concise, accessible, hard-hitting - I can type them out in full if anyone's interested.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 24, 2004 15:04:29 GMT
Another great article Mitch...yes it would be interesting to see all 8 points...thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 29, 2004 16:56:04 GMT
AIMS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE DIRECT ACTION MOVEMENT 1987
1. The Direct Action Movement is a working class organisation.
2. Our aim is the creation of a free and classless society.
3. We are fighting to abolish the state, capitalism and wage slavery in all their forms and replace them by self-managed production for need not for profit.
4. In order to bring about the new social order, the workers must take over the means of production and distribution. We are the sworn enemies of those who whould take over on behalf of the workers.
5. We believe that the only way for the working class to achieve this is for independent organisation in the workplace and community and federation with others in the same industry and locality, independent of, and opposed to all political parties and trade union bureaucracies. All such workers organisations must be controlled by workers themselves and must unite rather than divide the workers movement. Any and all delegates of such workers organisations must be subject to immediate recall by the workers.
6. We are opposed to all States and State institutions. the working class has no country. The class struggle is worldwide and recognises no artificial boundaries. The armies and police of all States do not exist to protect the workers of those States, they do exist only as the repressive arm of the ruling class.
7. We oppose racism, sexism, militarism and all attitudes and institutions that stand in the way of equality and the right of all people everywhere to control their own lives and the environment.
8. The Direct Action Movement is a federation of groups and individuals who believe in the principles of anarcho-syndicalism; a system where the workers alone control industry and the community without the dictates of politicians, bureaucrats, bosses and so-called experts.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 29, 2004 23:40:49 GMT
Thank you for posting those points Mitch...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Dec 21, 2004 21:50:45 GMT
"My mother taught us anarchism, .. almost like a religious person teaches religion to her children - but without imposing it on us, as the religious one does .. whether by her actions, by her way of expressing herself, and by always saying that they hoped for, longed for, anarchism .. It's almost as if she didn't teach them, we lived them, were born with them. We learned them as you would learn to sew or to eat". (Enriqueta Rovira, interview, Castellnaudary, France, Dec 29, 1981) Think I might have learnt a little anarchism from my mother!
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 11, 2005 9:48:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Jan 12, 2005 11:44:12 GMT
Cheers for highlighting this, your post particularly interesting.
I'll have a closer look and enter this debat shortly as looks promising.
Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Jan 15, 2005 16:23:30 GMT
enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3656&start=30I await the barrage of irony - or not perhaps. It is an interesting thread, but has rapidly become detached from the everyday, from experience. Still it's very existance as a thread seems to me a real step forward. I am grateful to Thora for starting it - hence my focus on her initial post.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Jan 15, 2005 19:08:24 GMT
Thanks for bringing this enrager thread to the attention of the board..I have just had a read through it, and although I haven't posted anything myself, have found it very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Jan 18, 2005 10:41:03 GMT
If there's anything you think of to put in that thread on enrager - you get on and do it girlfriend!
I'll tell you this - you've got a lot to offer them and to teach them.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Jan 18, 2005 15:35:07 GMT
Thanks Mitch...I haven't really got involved with any of the debates on there yet, as the ones I explored seem to have come to a standstill now, or other posters have said the things I was thinking of saying anyway...but I will be watching the site very closely now and seeing if I can pluck up the courage to debate along with them...some of the posters seem right characters already!!! Love reading the banter between them. Was trying to plough my way thru the fox hunting debate but it's 21 pages long and has gone off topic a little now, so have given up for the time being. Made a couple of tongue in cheek posts under my username Pushka in the Introductory Thoughts spot tho, so keep searching, u might just find me there...
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Feb 27, 2005 22:06:58 GMT
ON THE DESTRUCTION OF ADJECTIVES & OTHER WORDS:
For months on end I’ve been worried to death about offending those conventional anarcho-feminists: Brighid and Mitch (see post 16/11/04). Since last November in fact. They seem to be offended about my misuse of adjectives. Even the controller of the web forum seems to be chastising me for something called ‘sexism’ in my language.
I know Brighid (see post 18th, Nov. 2004) believes in zero-tolerance and is keen on the ‘grocers apostrophe’: even to a pedantic degree. Hence I’ve reread Lynne Truss’ ‘Eats, Shoots & Leaves’ on ‘The Tractable Apostrophe’: is there something wrong with the apostrophe in the subheading ‘Sue Machins’ Sexy Cross-examination!’ Should it be, for instance: ‘Sue Machin’s Sexy Cross-examination!’
This could be very important as Ms Truss says: ‘The striking Bolshevik printers of St Petersburg...in 1905, demanded to be paid the same rate for punctuation marks as for letters, and thereby precipitated the first Russian revolution.’
Brighid is clearly spiritually in the great tradition of Mr Syme, who in George Orwell’s book ‘1984’ was working on compiling the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. Mr Syme told Winston Smith: ‘The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition...You may think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words . But not a bit of it! We’re destroying words - scores of them, hundreds of them, every day...It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and the adjectives, but hundreds of nouns can be got rid of as well.’
I myself can’t resist using randy adjectives, as Brigid says it must be something to do with my wishful sexual fantasies. I see the adjective is defined in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as follows: ‘the adjective’ is ‘that which cannot stand alone; a dependent; an accessory (1639).’ As example of this the Dictionary gives: ‘Those Northern adjectives, not able to subsist without England.’ Or ‘Scotland is like a noun adjective that cannot stand without a substantive (Middle English).’ Or, and here‘s one for the conventional feminists; ‘The women were treated...as adjective beings (George Grote 1794-1871).’
As for dirty dreams and fantasies, the electricians on the Manchester building sites I’m told read the ‘North West Cowboy’ on the toilet when they are feeling low to cheer themselves up a bit. Now I can see how that might rightly upset a puritan like Brighid. We need more ‘Mind Police’ like Brighid to control our lowest instincts! Our favourite building site fantasy is of Brighid down on her House-Maid’s knees. Now isn’t that outrageous?
As for the troubling word ‘Sexy’ in ‘Sexy Cross-examination’, it strikes me in this context ‘sexy’ may be an adverb as much as an adjective. An adverb is a word that qualifies a verb and in this case the verb is ‘Cross-examination’.
Now not only are ‘adverbs’ and ‘adjectives’ dangerous these days but any word with ‘sex’ in it is particularly dangerous. We know that from no less a person than Alistair Campbell and the so-called ‘sexing-up of the weapons of mass destruction’ in reports by Her Majesties’ Government immediately preceding the lead up to the Iraq War. But here ‘sexing-up’ is a verb.
The art critic Camille Paglia in her book ‘SEXUAL PERSONAE: Art and decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson’ has written of the American Romanticist poet Emily Dickenson: ‘Dickenson can sexualize any situation, even the picking of a flower‘. In the same way it seems the ‘NORTH WEST COWBOY’ has managed to sexualise a court room drama. The critic Brighid claims ‘The Cockerel O’ the North’, which is a newsletter attached to the NORTHERN ANARCHIST NETWORK, and even ‘NORTHERN VOICES’ - which in some parts of Manchester is probably the best selling publication on the radical left - stand accused of sexualising or introducing what some call ‘sexism’ into their stories.
What arid minds some would say! Look at the boring litany of left wing publications in England which have stood rejected for endless decades. Why won’t Joe Public read these rags?
Because, I suppose, as Wyndham Lewis once said something like: ‘the common man’s idea of a good time is very different from that of the left-wing activist and progressive.’
These people all fall into the dumb contradictions of traditional liberalism. The liberal left, including some anarchists and most feminists, expect government to provide materially for us, but this is only possible thru an expansion of authority and bureaucracy. Thus the conventional feminist declares government to be the tyrant father, but demands it behave as a nurturing mother. An absurd contradiction.
Germaine Greer in her book ‘the whole woman’ (1999) wrote: ‘We (are) settling for equality. Liberation struggles are not about assimilation but about asserting difference with dignity and prestige, and insisting on a condition of self-definition and self-determination.’
In a similar way Camille Paglia argues: ‘Sexuality and eroticism are the intricate intersection of nature and culture. Feminists grossly oversimplify the problem of sex when they reduce it to a matter of social convention: readjust society, eliminate sexual inequality, purify sex roles, and happiness and harmony will reign. Here feminism, like all liberal movements of the past 200 years, is heir to Rousseau...The bubble of these hopes was burst by the catastrophes of two world wars. But Rousseauism was reborn in the post-war generation of the 1960s, from which contemporary feminism developed.’
Ms Paglia interestingly takes the view that feminism is the heir of liberalism and Rousseau, which is roughly the view of the anarchist Rudolf Rocker and of the US intellectual Noam Chomsky on the historical development of anarchism. But while Rocker and Chomsky take an optimistic slant on this tradition Ms Paglia is clearly pessimistic arguing: ‘Sexual freedom, sexual liberation. A modern delusion. We are hierarchical animals. Sweep one hierarchy away, and another will take its place, perhaps less palatable than the first. There are hierarchies in nature and alternate hierarchies in society. In nature, brute force is the law, a survival of the fittest. In society there are protections for the weak. Society is our frail barrier against nature....My theory is that whenever sexual freedom is sought or achieved, sadomasochism will not be far behind. Romanticism always turns to decadence...Sex is a far darker power than feminism has admitted. Behaviourist sex therapies believe guiltless, no-fault sex is possible. But sex has always been girt round with taboo, irrespective of culture.’
Perhaps I’ve missed something but I don’t see the anarcho-feminists solving these problems. And you certainly won’t do it by hectoring workingmen.
|
|
|
Post by Brighid on Feb 27, 2005 23:18:00 GMT
Well it's taken some months for you to own up to having written that appalling sh*te Bryan but fair play you've topped it by writing some more appalling sh*te and even managed to avoid apologising for the original piece. Equating feminism with liberalism is the favoured refuge of alleged anarchists who continue to subject women to the same tired stereotyping employed by those slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan. This trick is known as the 'K-Tel' of sexist behaviour: same sh*t different package. Quite why Camille Paglia comes into the equation I am unclear; she is to feminism what John Paul II is to free contraception. And for the record no 'workingmen' were harmed in the making of my last email - the original complaint concerned the objectification of a woman, not what the electricians write as the writer was clearly not an electrician but some git who cannot resist applying patronising terms to a woman even one that he admires. Your response is, it appears, very much of a piece with this original offence; when a woman objects to something that most intelligent people would find offensive she is to be dismissed as a 'liberal', a 'coventional' feminist (whatever that is), or even a 'puritan' ('no sense of humour love' - sound familiar?).
By the way nobody mentioned 'dirty dreams'. That came from you. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Feb 28, 2005 9:25:22 GMT
ON THE DESTRUCTION OF ADJECTIVES & OTHER WORDS: For months on end I’ve been worried to death about offending those conventional anarcho-feminists: Brighid and Mitch (see post 16/11/04). Since last November in fact. They seem to be offended about my misuse of adjectives. Even the controller of the web forum seems to be chastising me for something called ‘sexism’ in my language. Bryan...I said the use of the adverb or adjective sexy might have been interpreped as being sexist. Please can you tell us the reason why you chose the word sexy to describe the cross examination? and what image you hoped the phrase 'sexy cross examination' would conjure up in the readers' minds? What exactly is a 'sexy cross examination'? this argument has been going on for far too long and is damaging to the site.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 28, 2005 10:28:41 GMT
"Rests at Night The Sun from shining, Nature - and some Men - Rest at Noon - some Men - While Nature and the Sun - go on -" Emily D i c k i n s o n You Bryan are no friend of working class women. Germaine Greer, much like yourself, is as detached from the day to day experiences of myself and my women friends here in Nelson. Why don't you go and have a do on Enrager - you'll feel at home there. Meanwhile, we'll struggle on here. You I think like Campaneras who do not oppose your ideas - fool, anarchism for me is about changing people's consciousness of themselves, not quite as glamorous as your one man cowboy show, and we have been beaten down pretty low here in Burnley and Nelson many of us women but we are a strong network and we are gaining in confidence, and we are getting angry. You must look to the activities of groups of working class women like Mujeres Libres Bryan to understand where we come from here, not Germaine Greer. Perhaps it is you who are spending too much time with Liberal Feminists - seeking that spotlight. One man bands are no good to us here, and clearly you put no value on the voices and ideas of either Michele or myself here in Nelson, you make no effort to connect and understand our struggles here - it is a sad affair. I will be less polite than my sisters Brigid and Michele, who I stand firmly with, and I will say to you this - you are another idiot to be worked around. Our struggle here is years in the making, and together. You sweetie are a two minute wonder, consumed by personal prejudice. We will be heard and taken seriously, us women in Nelson and Burnley - you have no help to offer us obviously, now you run along after that spotlight. We will organise and work around you. Adieu, Mitch
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Feb 28, 2005 17:36:18 GMT
THANK YOU SISTER MITCH...TEEHEEHEE ;D
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Mar 5, 2005 23:17:02 GMT
Where did you do your ASSERTIVENESS TRAINING Mitch? I'm anxious to know, because I could do with a few lessons.
love bryan xxxx.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Mar 6, 2005 13:58:11 GMT
I learnt everything I know from some of those feisty women in the Piccadilly Road Residents Association, (some of whom I think you know), and I've asked a couple of them to make mincemeat of you. ;D
|
|