Pathfinders: Dirty Secrets
- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:What we can say with more confidence is that those many forms of sex and child abuse based on obsessions with power would find no nourishment in socialism because the structures of oppression, dominance and impotence would no longer exist.Be that as it may, if a problem existed socialism would have to deal with it, and the first priority would be to protect children. Studies suggest that many paedophiles have no desire to hurt children but a minority do, and there seems little room for doubt that in socialism dangerous paedophiles would, like any dangerous and out of control individual, have to be kept under restraint for the common good, though not for the purpose of punishment but in order that a successful and humane treatment could be found. For the rest, there would have to be a democratic debate about what was acceptable sexual preference and what was unacceptable medical condition. It could have implications for civil liberties, freedom of movement, sexual licence, levels of supervision of children, equality status of individuals. We can’t say today how it would proceed or how it would turn out, but it would be an informed hunt for solutions, not an inflamed hunt for witches.
My heart sank when I saw the subject of this article, not because it doesn't need discussing, but because (as it notes) this is a dangerous topic to even discuss. Other journals often end up running into dangerous libertarian waters, of the sort that would tarnish an organisations reputation if they're not careful.Of the two paragraphs above I think we're stronger on the second than the first (and we can add that since so much of law enforceement that goes into up-holding class power would be rendered unnecessary, we could devote more time and effort to dealing with genuinely dangerous individuals. The reason I think the first is weak is because there are so many people; it only takes a tiny percentage of people who "deviate" from norms for there to be a lot of pain in the world. If 0.0000001% of people are dangerous paedophiles, that would leave 70 in the UK alone.
Following is a discussion on the page titled: Pathfinders: Dirty Secrets.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!Also, thinking on, I'm not over keen on:
Quote:Meanwhile one after another crumbling octogenarian is manhandled out of the grave and into the dock to answer charges committed half a century ago in a swinging sexist society that did everything to encourage such behaviour.Certainly, I thought some of the charges were 'just wandering hands' (which is unpleasant, and needs to be stopped, but not necessarily with the full majesty of the law); but, Stuart Hall, for instance, admitted to some appalling acts with very young children in his trust. The others may be old, but some of the charges are very serious (and suggest they have been dangerous and very unpleasant men for a very long time). Certainly, Wilfred D'eath, who was exonerated by police did say how in the 60's he'd hit on 100 young women to succeed with 1, so that is unpleasant enough and must have been uncomfortable for 99 women, and that was the swinging atmosphere, but some of the others are crimes of pure and simple violence.
It was an ex member of the SPGB who's "Wandering Hands" fucked my life up of from the age of 9 onwards. This kind of minimisation of childhood sexual trauma is common but I was surprised and dismayed to read this article in the Standard. Childhood sexual abuse really ruined my life.
Credit is due to the 'Pathfinders' column for its bravery in taking on a subject that I wouldn't touch with someone else's bargepole. Taking the points that have been made in reverse order, I concur with Ozy. There is nothing trivial about the molestation of children, and it is a mistake to pass this damaging and unacceptable abuse off as 'just wandering hands'.YMS rightly points out that it only takes a small minority of sick people to fuck things up. I don't know what we should be saying about this, but to suggest that the problem will disappear in a socialist society is – to my mind – naive. It won't disappear for at least a few generations, and I think that one of the things that we need really to be talking about as revolutionaries is just how we might manage the kind of anti-social behaviour that is likely to scupper the revolution in its early days. It isn't enough to say that such behaviour won't be nourished in socialism. Quite probably we'll have to stamp on it heavily until it's dead.
I have always argued that the SPGB are not utopians; socialism is not meant to be a cure-all.Socialism is the solution to working class problems such as wage slavery, poverty, war and hunger. A relative's desire to beat senseless any one who deliberately hurts their child is universal and not related to the mode of production.Socialism will be a better environment to deal with such matters.
This may be of interest, the latest research on the rate of child abuse related to poverty rates.http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/02/16/350967/us-child-abuse-rising-with-income-gap/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.