Women on the left are responsible for austerity

Even if you believe in Ayn Rand-esque minimal taxation, tiny government, and no payments by the state to citizens, the charities made by concerned citizens to redress female subjugation (for example, the early days of Rape Crisis and the women's shelter movement, before they took the state shilling, which arguably made them weaker in the long run by denying them autonomy, but that's for another post/thread) need the legal right to exclude men as employees and service users, otherwise they cannot function effectively. This recognition of the need for women's right to single-sex services and free association without men present is where "right wing women are women" and a coalition across the economic spectrum, from Marxist to Randist, becomes applicable. I would argue that this coalition is very necessary to secure women's single-sex rights because we are not all going to agree on economic theory.

YY - great post in its totality and yes I agree re the refuges etc taking the tainted state's shilling - the attached T&Cs tie their hands very effectively to the whim of male politicians. It does need exploring separately I agree.

I find there's no point arguing with those who don't have the systems thinking to see sex class discrimination at play - it's not their fault or mine that they can't, but it is mine for continuing to argue with them when they can't see the holistic viewpoint.

It's also a reality that politicians aren't elected on their systems thinking skills which is why we have such male fuckwits in power, but who are also skilled at gaslighting many into thinking they have the skills - that's what Eton buys you....

I've asked MNHQ to pull the first copy of my long post. I shouldn't write long posts on my phone, it's way too easy to hit "post" when aiming my fat thumbs at "preview" and not even realise that the submission has happened.

LassWiADelicateAir It is a very emotional post.

I'm not sure how it's emotional. I put together a plausible situation based on what I know of domestic abuse (including a MNer's account of running down the road in bare feet to escape an abusive male partner) and explained how legislation and policy changes could endanger the woman being abused by hampering her escape. I use worked examples a lot to explain things.

It does not however make me change my mind about the Labour Party. I will not be voting for a bunch of economically illiterate Marxists or Momentum authoritarians.

That wasn't the point of my post. I have voted Green, Lib Dem, and Labour in the past and for the first time honestly cannot vote for anyone because there isn't a party out there who will defend the interests of women as a class, both in terms of austerity and of sex-based rights. So believe me, I am not here to tell anyone how to vote.

My point was the point I made, that individualism underpins both genderism and the all-party consensus on austerity.

economically illiterate Marxists

Engels explains how patriarchy requires the subjugation of women as the means of production of sons to be heirs for men and daughters to be used to broker alliances through marriage, and how this is motivated by the increase in male property ownership inherent in the adoption of agriculture. As PP and Thomas Paine have remarked "the earth in its natural state [...] is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state" and so we need agriculture (contrary to the views of the OP who truly is economically illiterate).

Feminists believe that women must be liberated from this subjugation of women that has come as a consequence of male property ownership. I will now argue that redress for women does not have to be incompatible with free market capitalism. The luminary of capitalist thinking that is Milton Friedman has suppported a Georgist-style tax on the unimproved value of land as "the least bad tax". Adam Smith explains that a tax based on the value of unimproved land does not hamper economic activity. Charging the tax annually to the landowner, instead of as a stamp duty at time of change of ownership, would discourage speculative purchasing and encourage productive use of land. (I was sickened by the sight of empty boarded-up houses in a southern academic city whilst homeless people begged on the streets of that same city. If houses sitting boarded up cost the owners money every year, they would soon sell them or rent them out. Could this even, , stimulate economic activity?) Part of the revenue from such a land tax could be paid to mothers as child benefit or motherhood wage, in recognition of the work mothers do to perpetuate the nation-state by creating new citizens with their bodies. This motherhood wage would not be incompatible with free market capitalism because the state paying mothers for their reproductive labour doesn't prevent the operation of the free market. This idea isn't Marxist feminism, if it had a name, it would be Georgist feminism.

Even if you believe in Ayn Rand-esque minimal taxation, tiny government, and no payments by the state to citizens, the charities made by concerned citizens to redress female subjugation (for example, the early days of Rape Crisis and the women's shelter movement, before they took the state shilling, which arguably made them weaker in the long run by denying them autonomy, but that's for another post/thread) need the legal right to exclude men as employees and service users, otherwise they cannot function effectively. This recognition of the need for women's right to single-sex services and free association without men present is where "right wing women are women" and a coalition across the economic spectrum, from Marxist to Randist, becomes applicable. I would argue that this coalition is very necessary to secure women's single-sex rights because we are not all going to agree on economic theory.

Many men are conditioned to not see women as equals - just objects for their use - so as long as women play handmaidens to the guys there's no issue from their perspective.

However when women point out the obvious systemic discrimination and bias at play and assert their independence by criticising the regimes that reinforce it, then you see the escalation and hostility of the NPDs, whatever their politics. They scapegoat and attack women whistleblowers and are bent on destroying them and their credibility. Sometimes their handmaidens act as their police.

If politicians were running a business, it would have gone broke long ago and they'd have been sacked. There are well-tried ways to stop systemic discrimination of women or any section of the population - but what's required are some brain cells, the will to treat everyone equitably plus experience in implementing these solutions - all of which are lacking in all parties, despite what they say.

It's only because there's no choice in a political system that people put up with it - but their patience is running thin - especially women. The system we have is past its time and is corrupted - run an elite cartel behind the scenes, enabled by a woke, university educated, career political class, that is indifferent to citizens unless their income stream and status is threatened. it.

The authoritarian left (of which Momentum is an excellent example) are proving to be just about the best self-destruct mechanism anyone hoping to scupper a working coalition on the left could hope for. Everyone hates them, other than members of their own group.

Just watched Andrew Neil's This Week- if I needed another reason not to vote Labour (and I really don't) the repellent Momentum bloke, Michael Walker, was a gift.

I think it all just highlights how fundamentally flawed our two party system is currently proving. Both main parties are simply playing a game of trying to juggle the balls between key factions. But that also means they are doing nothing but both-siderism in order to get power.

Which is why I lean towards Lisa's talk of a betrayal and warnings about the effect of tribalism. Women need to be really careful in this. Austerity and feminism are easy targets to try and avoid and put in a box to please certain groups for votes.

Ultimately Labour if they get into power, will inevitably be forced into a betrayal of some description. And that's most likely to come down to a numbers game.

But that will also lead to a backlash because it'll be impossible to square the circle.

Where that leads I have no idea, but we've already had a significant weakening of party loyalty amongst traditional types (who went to Ukip though have returned) and are now less loyal than they were. Labour in betraying another core group are risking a great deal in terms of tribalism in the long run.

I don't think we will see a political realignment of the parties yet, but I do think it will be on the cards in the not too distant future because of the hope thats being deliberately created as a political device that is impossible to reconcile.

Indeed! But we weren't such a pushover as he thought!

Another triangulation point Labour should be urgently considering: low turnouts are worse for them than they are for the Tories. Women staying at home because they have no-one to vote for is very bad for Labour.

Three words for you there

John McDonnell webchat.

You know, I have a very hard time believing that sex segregated spaces (as opposed to self ID and penises in women‘s spaces) would not be vote winners across the board. The woke one’s have the media amplifying their voices, but what are their numbers?

Maybe I am wrong but This reminds me very much of the situation in the US, where 70% of the electorate want single payer health care, and none of the major parties big shots (like Pelosi, Feinstein) will fight for it. (People who fight for it like Gabbard and Sanders and whoever else dares to go there are Outcast).

My impression is that much of the neoliberal shite has nothing to do with ‚being electable‘ but with money talking.

Another triangulation point Labour should be urgently considering: low turnouts are worse for them than they are for the Tories. Women staying at home because they have no-one to vote for is very bad for Labour.

From what I can see there are currently three distinct groups on the left when it comes to the Gender Debate:

The Traditionalists who think Boys should be Boys etc (Authoritarian Left)
The Gender Criticals (Liberal Left)
The Woke who pretend to be Liberal Left (Authorian Left)

Its an inherient tension. And a puzzle that can't be resolved easily for Labour.

Its easy to see how there is a squeeze within that when it comes to feminism generally. However Labour can not please everyone with that, and they need the votes of all these groups for power.

In an odd juxtaposition, RTB and PP's (indirect) contribution are prompting vague memories of Naomi Klein's discussion of when we seemed to abandon precautionary principles in This Changes Everything.

There seem to be odd rumblings that are not dissimilar to Blockadia (spontaneous local uprisings of protest - such as protesting at prosecutions of women like Linda Bellos and Venice Allan - or wondering if we need to chain ourselves somewhere about the state of our prisons and schools as publicised in recent news items).

We need system change (as Klein would say) because of the radical social transformation that must be carried out in order to combat the ease with which (in this case) women's sex-based rights are in danger of being encroached upon and/or erased. (Austerity; re-languaging the legal category of "woman" in a way that impacts what should be our inalienable rights; the economic and social impact of Brexit that look as if they will disproportionately affect women and vulnerable demographics.)

In line with what RTB wrote about the necessity to understand how democracy works, Klein argues (iirc) that support for democracy has to come from everywhere - and that the space for democratic political and social manoeuvre needs to be expanded. We do this or we repeatedly miss historic opportunities where campaigns, allegiances, and coalitions can bring about the necessary system change.

Do you self identify as on the left, on the right or as a centrist?

And is that correct?

This is a fascinating read.

medium.com/@nick.barlow/the-centrist-fallacy-43434642cb00?sk=cfdad8fb06018229b411a088d9b72834
The centrist fallacy

In both cases, we can see that the population as a whole isn’t arranged around what we might think is a moderate position. Voters’ views tend towards the ‘authoritarian’ and ‘left’ sides rather than clustering around the middle. (For more on this and how left-authoritarians are perhaps the largest and most unrepresented group in British politics, see the work of Paula Surridge on values and voting).

So, what we can already see is that despite people’s self-description of themselves politically clustering around the middle, their actual political views don’t.

Martin Luther King Jr was a believer in the American Dream and the American Constitution which was founded on liberal democratic priniciples.

Read up on any of the founding fathers and their views on propaganda and freedom of the press and they also repeat this about the need for plurality. Jefferson is my fav but he's simply from the same political church as King.

Its about checks and balances to the system and a social contract in which all people have a stake which is equal to each other.

What has happened in recent years is that has been eroded, and you have an increasing number who are disenfranchised from that process and are aware of it and feel unable to challenge it. The idea that the American Dream was something for everyone and that, if they choose and they worked hard, would give them rewards has disappeared.

This has happened to a large number of very different groups. Its come out of austerity - and a stagnation in political ideas and exchange where there is now a dominate grouping which seems to be actively working to shut out others who do not replicate them.

Thus we have hit a crisis point, where the functions of liberal democracy are no longer working and there is no incentive to debate, engage or otherwise be respectful as it feels like other ways to power are more effective.

This is presenting itself in lots of different ways, but the root causes are all very similar.

The only way out of this mess is for individuals on both sides of the political spectrum - left and right - to work towards reestablishing a feeling where liberal democracy itself offers them something. It needs a reawaking of those values.

The UK is part of that - even though we don't have a constitution. We are currently in a time of that crisis where it is essential to make the points we need to and DISCUSS things and feel like we are engaging and getting something out of doing so, in the face of feeling unrepresented in formal political channels. There are numerous political crisis points currently springing up because of a systematic failure, so it is natural that many will seek to exploit this. Politicians can not plug all these holes all at once. Indeed Corbyn's current strategy is precisely about capitalising on that inevitability of the damn bursting, in order to trigger some sort of political revolution. You also have elements on the right under Arron Banks and Leave.EU agitating in exactly the same thing.

However, the question with that for me, is whether thats really a people's revolution as its being framed or whether its more just like regime change, which doesn't benefit the people as a whole.

This is why the need to organise and create a variety of grassroot type groups - on a number of political issues and ideas - not just over the TRA stuff is such a crucial thing in the next couple of years. Otherwise we will end up with something rather ugly imposed on us.

And as part of that, it is absoluetely crucial that we all have a good understanding of how democracy is supposed to work in order to tackle the challenges that social media and viralent aggressive populism present.

I've been taking a look through some of the intellectual legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail feels especially relevant.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. ...

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom;...Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

That, the speech on the steps of Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery at the end of the march from Selma, and so much more. King's legacy would seem to support the need for plurality. He recognised the purblindness of some privileges and the policing of tone and objection to 'the way you go about it' (to paraphrase Joe Anderson's recent comments).

The idea that LOJ is a "journalist" is quite amusing to me. Imagine what would happen if he tried to investigate something and the facts he uncovered didn't support the conclusion he'd already reached.

Yes, Red, we find ourselves in the position where a professional commentariat - with left and right commentators both drawn from elite social closure - is earning ridiculous salaries while investigative journalists can barely scratch a living.

Note: The role of the media is supposed to be the separation of the actually problem from the politics around it.

When you start using opinion pieces to the extent we currently have, you undermine the process of separating the problem from the politics. Instead you make the ideology more important and place more barriers to getting to the truth.

We have got an issue where 'the mediating class' as Lisa describes it, is no longer very good at separating the problem from the politics.

Also note:
The closer you get to an unpalatable truth, the more noise and reaction you start to get.
You get hostility, you get people resistant, uncooperative, angry, acting to protect their pride / reputation, tribal loyalties.
It doesn't matter what it is.
Whether it be a politicial issue or a big cock up at work. Same thing.

You will see any number of propaganda techniques being used in arguments, to hinder getting to the bottom of a problem / issue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
Learn to spot them and call them out.

Focus on the heart of the issue. The very core of whats going on and its roots. That's how you solve problems.

And I ask you in that context, why is that Posie Parker video getting so much traction?

Frankly it should not matter WHO is saying what she does in that video. It could be an alien with three heads saying it. It could be a talking turtle.

Its the message thats important because of how stark, blunt and to the point it is.

You can spend hours examining Posie's intent, background, pick apart the wording, through about other things she's said and do a complete character assasination.

None of which alter the truth of what she says in that video. Cos its inescapable and thats what people, for whatever reason are trying to distract from.

Start thinking in terms of political messaging, 'If it was an alien saying this, would it still have value?'

Also placemarking, and brilliant post red 👍

This reminds me of previous occasions when the women's movement was nearly getting some actual power, and a few random, articulate individuals would appear and suddenly people were arguing with each other instead.

Anyone who suggests debate over women’s rights & women’s political representation should be seperated from discussions about austerity has clearly never found themselves wondering if there is enough emergency electric on the key meter to both finish their uni essay tonight AND power the toaster for their kids’ breakfast in the morning.

This is the most random thread I have ever read.

You don't understand. Everything is connected!