The labour movement must be a safe space for women
- This topic has 42 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In light of the allegations in more than one organisation, there is a document inviting signatures of support
Quote:Our movement must be a safe space for women
We the undersigned labour movement activists stand in solidarity with all women opposing all forms of male violence against women. We recognise that male violence against women is endemic in society, and that our movement is obviously and unfortunately not exempt.
We believe that our trade union and labour movement has the potential to transform society for the better. Therefore we have a particular responsibility to confront and challenge male violence against women within our movement.
Male violence against women is not acceptable in any case. It must not be tolerated from those who hold office or power in our movement.
We recognise the enormous challenges faced by women victims of male violence, and the pressures which women face, including from abusive men, not to complain about violence and abuse. We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women.
We believe that all women who complain of male violence have the right to be listened to and supported.
All labour movement activists have a responsibility to work to ensure that our movement is a safe space for women. Because we stand in solidarity with all women opposing male violence we accept that we have a responsibility to women throughout our movement, whether or not we are members of the same trade union or the same political organisation.
We therefore address these demands to all trade unions and political organisations which are part of our labour movement.
Marshajane Thompson and Cath ElliottHi JD (hope you don't mind the acronym? If you like rock music it is often considered cool)What is your take on the invitation? Is it something the SPGB should collectively take part in?Does anyone else have a view?
YES, I like the statement a lot, reminiscent of a proposal I made to last ADM (before all this controversy broke), but I can see it being controversial among SPGB members. Toying with proposing signing it to next EC.
Hi JDI tend to agree with you for the most part. I've been talking to a couple of my fellow northern socialists and we agree that on the whole the statement is fine. Apart from a little bit.
Quote:We recognise the enormous challenges faced by women victims of male violence, and the pressures which women face, including from abusive men, not to complain about violence and abuse. We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women.We believe that all women who complain of male violence have the right to be listened to and supported.It might seem a bit picky to some, but no pre investigation bias should be taken. The statement, instead of saying, "should start from a position of believing women.", would benefit from changing to, "should start from a position of taking women seriously."Other than that, I think the SPGB should seriously consider supporting it.
This is knocking at an open door. Meanwhile out there, there are bigger fish to fry:http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/muslim-brotherhood-opposes-un-declaration-on-violence-against-women-1.1326515
ALB wrote:This is knocking at an open door. Meanwhile out there, there are bigger fish to fry:http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/muslim-brotherhood-opposes-un-declaration-on-violence-against-women-1.1326515So I take it you think the party should sign up to the statement? It would be a positive move towards showing some concrete solidarity.Of the "bigger fish", what do you propose to counter the negative attitude among religious conservatives?
SocialistPunk wrote:So I take it you think the party should sign up to the statement? It would be a positive move towards showing some concrete solidarity.Meantime maybe JD could post the link for any individuals (some of whom aren't members anyway) who wish to sign it.Re ALB's 'bigger fish' – yes, I read a lengthy article on this yesterday, now somewhere in the ether and I couldn't retrieve it. The one I refer to compared the position of the new pope and the catholic church in general, the Muslim brotherhood and the American right/born again christians plus the Russian Orthodox church. All of them strongly rooted in patriarchy which pretty well all of the world is to a greater or lesser degree. Patriarchy (or hierarchy) at home, at work, in governments and dictatorships, on the streets, in pubs and clubs; men v, women, father over family, old v. young, teachers v. students etc etc —- we (socialists) have much to contend with.I'm sure we all regularly find ourselves in positions where instances arise that we need to challenge, sometimes at the risk of losing a friend or alienating a colleague – but they can't go unchallenged. A big part of 'getting to socialism' means eradicating both patriarchy and hierarchy.
SocialistPunk wrote:Of the "bigger fish", what do you propose to counter the negative attitude among religious conservatives?We can leave most of this to these courageous people: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/
What's with the 'we', Colborn? I thought you'd dumped us? And 'socialist' punk. You're not a member. Who the fuck are you to tell our party what we should do when you don't even have the nerve to join? Pontificate away, buddy, but prescribe us not our duties, mofo.This is all a bit like advocating 'socialist netiquette', really, without first having socialism. It's a cart before horse situation.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:What's with the 'we', Colborn? I thought you'd dumped us? And 'socialist' punk. You're not a member. Who the fuck are you to tell our party what we should do when you don't even have the nerve to join? Pontificate away, buddy, but prescribe us not our duties, mofo.This is all a bit like advocating 'socialist netiquette', really, without first having socialism. It's a cart before horse situation.Ha, Ha, Ha, my belly is starting to hurt from laughter. My dear Jonathan, you just don't know when to quit. This from someone who labeled others "loudmouth gobshites". Text book hypocrisy.For starters you don't have to be a SPGB party member to be a socialist. I have heard a few times now from various members that the SPGB is not going to be at the forefront of any socialist revolution. In case you were not aware or in case you just choose not to listen, I was a party member for about six years, mid nineties onwards.Now for the juicy part Jonathan. I was looking to rejoin. Believe it or not, (I can't myself) I still feel my political home is with, dare I say this, people like you.I joined the forum to find out how the party was doing, with the intention of rejoining. When I found out about this forum, I had expected a lively vibrant forum with a lot of party members and non party members discussing and learning from one another. At first, to a newbie, it seemed that way. But then I started to see the SPGB negative criticism seep through. I started to notice the sniping and nitpicking. I realised most using the forum were party members, often chasing away potential interested, inquisitive people, just because their ideas did not conform 100% or had been "tried before". I saw those people being cut down, never to return.My eyes started to open once more to the flaws of the party. That is why I started to ask awkward questions. Don't get me wrong, I think most party members are spot on. It was my privilege to meet some in my years in the party. One of my closest friends, was until recently, a long standing hard working committed SPGB member. He still is a committed socialist, as am I.I have concerns for the future of the SPGB and WSM movement as a whole. I want it to thrive. It is for that reason I continue to participate on this forum. I had presumed it was open to non party members? In fact, I thought it was to encourage enquiring minds to participate?I ask you Jonathan, what is it you want this forum to do? You seem uninterested in creating a socialist space of encouragement and learning. A "socialist netiquette" would be part of that space of positive socialist education and discussion, don't you think? Or do you want a forum only for party members to pat each other on the back?May I suggest, instead of shouting your mouth off, aiming harsh language at people in an attempt to mark you territory, you contribute positively to a thread? Maybe set a good thread up, that might generate some interest and discussion? That is what I am trying to do. Sure, I have ruffled a few feathers, I am a million miles away from perfect, but I strive to improve. My brother and I came to that decision a number of years ago, and I try to honour that commitment to him, to this day.So swear and fling all the shit, you want Jonathan. I will still be here, offering suggestions, pointing out flaws as well as patting backs when warranted. It's never too late to start contributing something positive. I highly recommend it.
Thanks Jonny, for that interesting intervention. What does mofo mean by the way? By saying "we", I of course meant "Socialists" and I do not have to be in the SPGB to aver this, unless you know otherwise? As someone who first joined the Party in 1981, I don't really think I need permission from you, or anyone else, to include myself under this umbrella.The point however is, that women make up over 50% of the working class. That the SWP bigwigs think so little of women that they act in this way, is a disgrace. That so-called bourgious law, is the only game in town, is a given. You use what you have.As a mate of mine said, give women support and the right for their accusations to be heard but not carte-blanche belief unequivocally, before the "facts" are ascertained. In keeping these issues behind closed doors, the SWP leadership is out of order!I cannot imagine what a woman subjected to rape must be undergoing, to add this kind of farce to the melting pot, just adds insult to injury.With certain reservation, ie outlined above, I would be more than willing to support the original statement.. Steve.
I totally agree with Steve.I think ALB and Jonathan Chamber have missed the boat entirely. To dismiss the opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with others involved in the struggle against capitalism is a possible costly mistake.Better that the SPGB show the way forward with more than words, than to lose the a chance to show others what we as real socialists stand for. Hopefully the women who have drafted the statement will be approached, perhaps given some literature showing the long standing party view on this issue.If we are willing to stand along side and listen to others, then there is a greater chance they will listen to our case. If they are dismissed in the usual way, I can guarantee they and others will continue to dismiss us.Oooops! There I go again, thinking I am a socialist. Sorry, I'll try harder next time.
That was not my point at all. It was that, while we oppose religion in general (which we do very well, despite pleas from some quarters not to), it is better to leave it to ex-adherents of particular religions to campaign against their particular ex-religion's patriarchical and anti-woman preachings and practices (shared by the world's two main religions, Christianity and Mohammedanism, as well as by a minor one, Judaism). Thus, organisations like the Council of Ex-Muslims are best placed to denonce the Muslim teaching that husbands can rape and beat their wifes.As to the wording of the petition, I've seen the same reservation expressed on other forums about the word "believing" as expressed by our friends in North-East and the same amendment of replacing this by "taking seriously". I'm not sure, though, that the petition is open to amendment or that those who drafted it would agree to this or any amendment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.