women
- This topic has 32 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Got any? Are any of your members or lurkers women (besides me)? The more I read here and in general, the more apparent it is that women and men have different perspectives regarding socialism.
Actually admice, I was introduced to the Socialist Party by the woman, who I am now married to. She is currently a ,member of The Socialist Party. That she does not come on this Forum, is her choice.Eil, has the same perspective as I do, on Socialism, she actually, along with Bobby Gleg, got me into the Socialist Party. Her "money trick", is a doozy.Afraid, if you are trying to present, that male and female Socialists have a difference, then, in the parlance of my native North East of England, you are pissing against the wind. You are wrong.If that offends you, then, it is you who should re-evaluate your thought processes. Stevie C.
Not enough, but no less than any other political organization. As to why that is, it's a good question but I don't have the answer. Some say it's because women are more burdened by family life. It could be because as children boys are more likely to be taught about politics (I think it might have been that way in my family). It could be that women are put off by the somewhat aggressive nature which men tend to debate and find they struggle to get their voices heard. There's just a few reasons others have come up with but in the end I don't know how accurate if at all any of those answers are, maybe an amalgamation maybe none of the above.In the branch I'm in, of the regular attendees we have more women than men.We don't do anything differently it's just the luck of the draw.As for "a different perspective" I think people have different perspectives on all kinds of things. Perhaps you could expand a bit on exactly what you mean by that part. What do you think, if any, the difference in perspective is?
admice wrote:Got any? Are any of your members or lurkers women (besides me)? The more I read here and in general, the more apparent it is that women and men have different perspectives regarding socialism.During the World War women were in charge of the Socialist Party
I just haven't read any posts here that seem to be from women, so wondered how many you might have here or internationally. AS for the rest I may take up the argument later.
Personally, I dont give a good god damn, whether members of The Socialist Party are male, female, hermaphrodite or whatever! As long as they are Socialists, thats enough for me. Anything else is ephemera. Stevie C.
admice wrote:I just haven't read any posts here that seem to be from women, so wondered how many you might have here or internationally. AS for the rest I may take up the argument later.=================================Mcolome1 commentary: We have women who are members of the party but their participation mostly take place at SPOPEN, it is their personal decision to participate or no to participate in this forum, or in others forumsThe Socialist Party is a political organization different to the left wingers, or to the capitalist, or reformist feminist movement, we are not based on the separation of man or women, we are not sexists, our immediate and future program is not in order to obtain better conditions for women, better jobs, and better salaries, or better education, or to carry a briefcase to become an executive, not even for better working conditions for men, We are exploited by capitalism as laborers, and it does not make any difference if the slave is a woman, or man, a minor, , and elderly, or a homosexual. The exploitation of human being takes place at the point of production, it does not take place at the point of sexual differentiation. We must liberate ourselves as human beings This article explains our stand regarding women and socialismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/women-and-socialism
Certain groups, even certain political groups, attract more women than others. Feminists obviously attract more female members than male, but also environmental groups and animal rights groups attract a more proportionate composition (reflective of current society) than other political groups. Why that might be, is a question worth asking, including of the Socialist Party. The answer could be quite simple, about where the SPGB advertise, or it could be more complex about psychological factors and the way the SPGB present the case.Does a traditionally adversarial approach appeal to some people and not others? Does more social activity and relationship building appeal to some people and not others? One approach isn't necessarily better than any others, just different and it might not be useful to simply dismiss this. Approaches don't necessarily demarcate along gender lines either. Eleanor Marx, a socialist who might be said to be in our tradition, clearly felt engaged, and did extensively engage in late 19th Century socialist politics. This was years before the movement for women's suffrage got off the ground, let alone, women's right to vote.
I didn't think for a minute that, as a group (or probably individually) you discriminate in any way. "we are not sexists, " No doubt in my mind you aren't."Why that might be, is a question worth asking" I think so, but then I majored in sociology. I just wondered. That's fine if it's "ephemera" to you. It matters to me.I know I couldn't have conceived of getting involved when my son was young, so that certainly plays a part.
Actually Admice, I was being a mite blase. As someone whose minor was in Sociology, I also am inquisitive enough to wonder why less women appear in the ranks of a political party. Especially this revolutionary Socialist Party. It may have something to do with the differing social conditioning men women undergo! It is only fairly recently, that a womans place in society has been seen as more than merely an adjunct of men. I can see the differences between men and women, the superficial difference of black and white, understand that individuals have differences in sexuality, but what I was getting at was, that for me personally, the most important thing is, whether or not one is class conscious and from that viewpoint, to me at least, all else is, ephemera.I,ve never been overburdened with the discriminatory impulses our betters would have us accept, that help to keep us, as a class, divided. Stevie C.
Oh, we do discriminate…non-socialists are not permitted to join , nor those who hold religious beliefs, racist or sexist ideas. That alone reduces our pool of potential members. Our membership sadly does not reflect the population. It is mostly white, male and european . We have been described as Anglo-Marxist. We have also been accused of being the aristocracy of labour, even of being autodidacts as if that was a bad thing. Perhaps it is historical the reason for the geographic limitation of our influence. Even in the UK there appears to be an uneven spread of members. Maybe i am wrong but i would like to see a map of members locations and see where we are concentrated. Our foreign language section is quite extensive though. Our articles content always tries to be world-wide. SOYMB blog this week has covered about a dozen regions of the globe. We can never be satisfied with either though and are always improving on it when we can. We have never tried to appeal to any one section of the population such as create a youth wing or a student organisation or factory cells as many Leftists parties do. Members are treated with the same accord regardless of age or experience or sex or ethnic origin within the SPGB. We try to address certain social problems , hence pamphlets in the past on women , racism and education but our attitude is to link them to the whole and not a separate issues deserving of any special attention. There is no hierarchy of exploitation, in other words. Our skewed membership i think is shared with every type of organisation, political and non-political. How we ourselves overcome it just may be outside our power at the moment. But i don't think it is through lack of trying or will. We should never stop asking such questions though and seeking some answers and solutions to the problem.
Most of the social sciences taught at the universities are twsited, and they do not present the real social reality, as we have an article which shows that for sociologists there are more than 50 social classess in our society which is not true, because there are only two social classes, and there is not a third one, or there are not middle point between the social classess.You are a capitalist, or you are a worker, and we do not have the romantic notion that both can be mixed and reconcile their different interests like little brothers and sistershttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/ownership/two-class-society Two class society.Most sociology professors would have a different opinions, as well, there are many anthropologists who have a different opinion to us in regarding to the origin of mankind, culture, and religion, and most economists also have a different opinion and will not agree with us, even more, we think that they are from another planetIn some countries men and women have been more brainwashed than in others countries, and many are militants of the parties of the ruling class, but in others countries there are a lot of women who are militants and members of socialists and communist parties, and some are members of some guerrillas groups .Our membership is small due to the facts that only socialists are admitted as members, we do not have open admission like the left wings groups, and sadly we have been more attractive to men than to women, and most of our members are European descendents. In Latin America we only have one member, but the socialist party of venezuela has more than 6 millions members. We had a very good group in Jamaica but it does not exist any longer, probably, it was the only socialist party that ever existed in Latin America and the CaribbeanAt the Socialist Party we do not care if our members are from Mars or from Venus, we do not care about any flags or any nationality, or the color of the skin of any person, we do not even support the concept of race which have never existed, we are apologists of a world society without borders, without countries, without flags, and national hymm, a world society where the particular culture of every place must be treated in equal level, because they are not inferior or superior culture,In a socialist society we are not going to need embassies, ambasadors, international lawyers, and passports, and paper money could be used as toilet paper or wall paper, and gold and silver could be used in order to make cooking pot.The issue of abortion or not abortion would not be a matter of the state, because we are not going to have one, it would be a personal decision, and religions are not going to interfere either because religion is going to be a problem of personal incumbence, if you want to worhsip a cow, or all the gods of Egypt or Greece that would be your own personal decision.The social issues that women are confronting now are not going to be resolved in this society with bourgoise reforms, the real solutions are going to take place in a real socialist society
alanjjohnstone wrote:Oh, we do discriminate…non-socialists are not permitted to join , nor those who hold religious beliefs, racist or sexist ideas. That alone reduces our pool of potential members. Our membership sadly does not reflect the population. It is mostly white, male and European . We have been described as Anglo-Marxist. We have also been accused of being the aristocracy of labour, even of being autodidacts as if that was a bad thing. Perhaps it is historical the reason for the geographic limitation of our influence. Even in the UK there appears to be an uneven spread of members. Maybe i am wrong but i would like to see a map of members locations and see where we are concentrated. Our foreign language section is quite extensive though. Our articles content always tries to be world-wide. SOYMB blog this week has covered about a dozen regions of the globe. We can never be satisfied with either though and are always improving on it when we can. We have never tried to appeal to any one section of the population such as create a youth wing or a student organisation or factory cells as many Leftists parties do. Members are treated with the same accord regardless of age or experience or sex or ethnic origin within the SPGB. We try to address certain social problems , hence pamphlets in the past on women , racism and education but our attitude is to link them to the whole and not a separate issues deserving of any special attention. There is no hierarchy of exploitation, in other words. Our skewed membership i think is shared with every type of organisation, political and non-political. How we ourselves overcome it just may be outside our power at the moment. But i don't think it is through lack of trying or will. We should never stop asking such questions though and seeking some answers and solutions to the problem.=========================================================================================MColome1 commentary: The WSPUS was initially formed by European and Canadian workers who emigrated to USA which in some way reflect the level of class consciousness of the working class in some countries.http://wspus.org/about-us/a-brief-history-of-the-wspus/ The Socialist Party of Canada has a long historyhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/historym.pdf
alanjjohnstone wrote:even of being autodidacts as if that was a bad thing. . -================================================== We do not need a central committee to tells us what we must do, or what we must not do, and we do not have to follow the teaching of a central committee or a group of theoreticians living in their ivory toweralanjjohnstone wrote:Even in the UK there appears to be an uneven spread of members. Maybe i am wrong but i would like to see a map of members locations and see where we are concentratedThis has been done and it showed that the biggest concentration of members was in London, followed by Lancashire and then Scotland. It also showed that many Central Branch members lived on the coast in an arc from Cornwall to Norfolk, i.e of retired workers who had moved there after a life of wage-slavery.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.