Women on the left are responsible for austerity

[CarrotyO]

I've heard it said that women on the left actually support and are therefore in some way responsible for austerity. This is because both Labour and the Tories support austerity. Therefore any woman who supports Labour, or the Left in general, also knowingly and consciously supports austerity and are therefore also responsible for the 1000s of deaths of disabled people caused by austerity. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Her assertion that by organising the left, you are tacitly supporting, and responisble for, austerity.

No. Her assertion is that protecting personal political identity and party messaging (which is anti-austerity) in contraindication to factual policy proposals (which uphold austerity) is tacitly supporting austerity.

Engage with that.

Maybe we can bring back carrier pigeons, deep, or train ravens like on GOT.

I actually agree with Lisa that the treatment of Posie was shabby and left her horribly exposed. I’ve stepped back from WPUK to other groups that sit better with my politics as a result. I don’t agree with carroty’s politics at all, fwiw.

But i still don’t think that carroty is to blame for the entire derail, and i’ve obviously missed whatever seems to others like trolling. I can’t follow Lisa’s posts (so i don’t know what I am meant to agree or disagree with). I can follow carroty’s (and am clear that where there are some interesting points, at the end, i don’t think they’re practical or implementable).

This thread is like a rorschach test

OPs response to the point that Lisa originally made entirely proves Lisa’s original point. I don’t always keep up with Lisa and a lot of what she says goes above my head, but I get the gist of it and she’s right.

And now I’ve had to google rorschach test every day’s a school day on here

There's an extra irony in the fact that the jumping off point for Lisa's comments was the public trashing of Posie Parker, and that Carroty then responded with what very much comes across as a demand that the women here do the same to Lisa.

did i even spell it right, lurkacus? i wasn’t 100% sure...

But OP, you seem to not realise that for society as it is, right now, to return to hunter gatherer, will require and result in the deaths of billions of people.

We covered that. But it's ok, ''cause we need to make room for other species, anyway. Like bisons.'' 'Cause the remaining people will need to hunt something and stuff.

I think one of her points is that trans issues come directly out of an erosion of women's ability to speak their truth and that started with working class women in austerity. Their reality didn't fit the politics of the time so it was actively suppressed. It led to a general undermining of social fail safes for women. The trans rights thing is only possible because of that and has happened because there is a greater expansion of suppression of reality that disproportionately affects women. Women are best placed and able to see this. But middle class women were part of the suppression process and were complicit through their lack of action. They didn't want to acknowledge working class problems and wanted to protect their own status so wrote off working class women - at times as bigoted or stupid or lazy (insert your own dehumanising language). It's the same dynamic as the one that lead to the rise of nazi Germany (which is why she calls many of those on the left she feels enabled it, facists). A culture of blame to deflect from the actual problems facing society in which a particular class are effectively deliberately marginalised and harmed. She highlights how far from socialist principles this really is.

And she's not wrong on many counts.

People don't want to face up to this so react badly to it being spelt out so bluntly.

She is not right about everything but she's calling it pretty damn well, in my opinion.

I don’t want Lisa to be trashed! I want women to be honest about arguments being put forth. She is repeatedly and publicly trashing Wpuk for really fanciful reasons and I am questioning those.

Have people ever heard the phrase - debate ideas not people? Can we apply it here please?

Maybe we can bring back carrier pigeons, deep, or train ravens like on GOT.

Yeah, that might work. GOT is a high-tech world of agriculture, though. Not sure the hunter-gatherer stuff allows for luxuries like ravens. And where would those ravens return to? Pretty sure hunter-gatherer lifestyles are generally nomadic. So...

SophoclesTheFox

Google brought me to ink blot tests which I had heard of, I just didn’t know the big word like everything else on this board

But you don't appear to have understood the ideas that she was trying to express.* Perhaps you could engage with those instead.

*(You've also called women who disagree with you racist in the other thread, and implied that disagreement with you means they don't want women to be empowered in this one, which doesn't exactly come across as a stunning example of good faith and fairness).

i think you’ve explained it more clearly, red.

But it highlights two things for me. The issue raised by the Deptford People’s Project, for example, that it is unhelpful for middle class people to bring their perspective to problems they don’t understand - that’s its counter productive.

And there’s an undercurrent that doesn’t quite sit right with me about blaming women for something I’m not sure was ever in women’s hands to fix.

But thank you for the clarification, I understand the point better now.

Have people ever heard the phrase - debate ideas not people? Can we apply it here please?

Ok, let's do that: Purity politics are utter shite and the application of them by a small fraction of the WPUK to predictably expose rather vulnerable associated women to the aggression of what can only be called Brwonshirts in Drag is unacceptable imo.

We're fucked either way TBQH.

Best try to cushion the collapse by lessening the birth rate (contraception/girls' education). Tackling infant & maternal mortality... basic simple but modern public health measures like vaccination, hygiene & midwifery training. Ppl will have fewer children as they won't have to overcompensate. Growing perennial crops & cropping trees that strenghten soil structure, rather than annuals like corn wheat & soya that degrade the soil & require huge fossil fuel fertiliser inputs. So basically permaculture. Semi-wild the grassland with grazing animals that rebuild soils with dung, also sequestrates carbon from the atmosphere. Cattle farting methane is mainly a problem with grain fed animals. Bring salmon back to the rivers... you used to be able to hear the thunder of salmon miles away a couple of hundred yrs ago.

It's not an either/or dichotomy... bison/salmon vs humans, it's both/and. Healthy bison & salmon populations (&the eco systems they thrive in) means healthy stable human communities, that don't rely on the unsustainable draw down of natural resources, soil, river systems & animal populations.

It's not the stark choice between iPads & Gap sweatshirts vs scratching around in the dirt for nuts & berries outside your cave. It's intelligently using what we have (medicine/tech etc) and switching our subsistence needs over to a permanent system of food/clothing/goods production.

That all makes perfect sense, chilli.

I think that looking into shifting to more sustainable systems is absolutely something we should be doing. I don't that in practical terms that could possibly mean returning to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle for the majority of humans.

Have people ever heard the phrase - debate ideas not people? Can we apply it here please?

Except when it comes to Posie Parker who is a racist homophobe. We must all publicly denounce her to prove we're not racist homophobe!

It is too early in the morning for this thread, I'm off to forage some gin

As there totes isn't an issue with disabilities being dealt with in anarcho-huntergathering... Can I just check, how do I forage electricity for my wheelchair?

No. Her assertion is that protecting personal political identity and party messaging (which is anti-austerity) in contraindication to factual policy proposals (which uphold austerity) is tacitly supporting austerity

Aha see. And this is exactly why my comments on Wpuk / pp were relevant. Regardless of whether you agree with their action, it was motivated out of a commitment to anti-racist principles and in solidarity with Muslim women. As per their statement. Lisa cannot take that statement at face value but assumes their actions were motivated by loyalty to party politics. And then further extrapolates that women in Wpuk are responsible for the deaths of 100,000s of disabled people!

Does no one really see the issue with these leaps of logic?

Yes chilli. Thank you for that wonderful explanation.

However you really need to think about the ethics of forcing poor people to mine minerals for your iPads.

(You've also called women who disagree with you racist in the other thread, and implied that disagreement with you means they don't want women to be empowered in this one, which doesn't exactly come across as a stunning example of good faith and fairness)

Not true. Those were my observations based on conversations I’ve had with women on this issue. Some women see islamophobia, and some really don’t. Their assessment of the pp/Wpuk situation is impacted by that.

Yes chilli. Thank you for that wonderful explanation.

Well, Carroty, that is not the world you advocated for, though. You were all hunting and gathering...