Defend the SSP! Oppose a split!
- Thread starter Dan Jakopovich
- Start date
darren redparty
a very bad man
from the reports of the trial this principle is also employed in tommys personal lifeBear said:
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
Bear said:
Oh no - they havent let feminists into a socialist party have they.
So what is this "freakery" you speak of
...proposing bans on commercial material which objectifies women for profit
This split isnt over feminism, but has meant that all of the patriarchs of the party have crawled out from under their stones - how dare the politics of sex take precidence over the priveleges of the almighty socialist leader.
Now I dont know if Sheridan did use prositutes or not - and as far as I can see from the court case its still a moot point - but I dont want to be in a party with people who think thats acceptable behaviour. Nor do I want to be in a party with people who think that its unacceptable for one comrade's sex life to be splashed all over the NoTW (...a private life is a private life...) while other comrades are dragged into court to testify under oath to the details of theirs (questioned by the person who they say is their former lover and denies the relationship).
It's very sad some numbskulls have not realised women's liberation is an integral component in the fight for socialism in the here and now. How some of the oafs on this thread can look at themselves in the morning after spouting such gynophobic bile beggars belief.
JHE
.
I saw another report in the Times today. (I know it's a stablemate of the News of the Screws, but I doubt that makes much difference at this point.)
Thanks to that report of the trial, I now (finally) understand why Sheridan had to resign. He told the rest of the leadership of the SSP that he was going to sue News International. Nobody supported him in that.
There is dispute about whether he had admitted to his comrades that he had been to 'swinging' clubs - but, either way, it was the disagreement over legal action that led to his resignation/ousting.
Maybe there's plenty wrong with the leadership of the SSP, but opposing Sheridan's daft decision was just good sense.
Thanks to that report of the trial, I now (finally) understand why Sheridan had to resign. He told the rest of the leadership of the SSP that he was going to sue News International. Nobody supported him in that.
There is dispute about whether he had admitted to his comrades that he had been to 'swinging' clubs - but, either way, it was the disagreement over legal action that led to his resignation/ousting.
Maybe there's plenty wrong with the leadership of the SSP, but opposing Sheridan's daft decision was just good sense.
Philbc03 said:
There are many nasty things I may be, but gynophobic is not one of them!
My collection of Club International, Mayfair and Knave are testament to that!
Philbc03 said:
Equality is certainly an integral component in the fight for any just society - but the womens network in the SSP have taken it to new extremes. You're talking about a group of people, who, if there we two positions to be selected would insist that one was male the other was female regardless of competency.
I'll give you an example, when we wanted to pick one person to stand in the council elections we were expect to them pick another person of different gender just to balance the numbers. When we I asked why we couldn't just pick whoever we felt was best since there was not a hint of sexism from any of the branch members we were told that we were incapable of not being sexist and that we were all subconsicencely sexist and didn't know it.
That's simply extreme and mental.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
It gets worse - not only do they let feminists into the SSP but these feminists take equity to extremes 
You are right - wimmin do tend to have a more rounded view of socialism, equality and oppression, but we think its important that men are included in the class struggle - which is why we reserve half of the positions for them. Despite the fact that they tend to be collectively less aware of the nature of capitalism and more profoundly affected by patriarchial attitudes through their collective benefit of them there are still sufficient numbers of competent men in the party for us to be confident that we can fill half of our positions with them.
You are right - wimmin do tend to have a more rounded view of socialism, equality and oppression, but we think its important that men are included in the class struggle - which is why we reserve half of the positions for them. Despite the fact that they tend to be collectively less aware of the nature of capitalism and more profoundly affected by patriarchial attitudes through their collective benefit of them there are still sufficient numbers of competent men in the party for us to be confident that we can fill half of our positions with them.
q_w_e_r_t_y said:It gets worse - not only do they let feminists into the SSP but these feminists take equity to extremes
You are right - wimmin do tend to have a more rounded view of socialism, equality and oppression, but we think its important that men are included in the class struggle - which is why we reserve half of the positions for them. Despite the fact that they tend to be collectively less aware of the nature of capitalism and more profoundly affected by patriarchial attitudes through their collective benefit of them there are still sufficient numbers of competent men in the party for us to be confident that we can fill half of our positions with them.
You wouldn't be saying that if you were in a small branch where there were say, 5 males who wanted to stand on council seats and 2 females that wanted to stand and as a result three people weren't allowed to stand because the number of candidates must be 50/50.
How would you feel if your branch wasn't allowed to send a deligate to the conference because it didn't have any candidates of a particular sex able to go? One branch wasn't allowed to have a deligate to national conference because there were no female members and hence couldn't have a 50/50 balance.
I also reckon that the 50/50 thing was about getting certain people (who're now going to lose their seats) to the top of the regional list because they couldn't have got there on merit.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
...although pairing is encouraged to ensure gender equality in Council Elections, exceptions can be granted by the Regional Committee if branches have shown that all efforts have been exhausted to find suitable candidates (SSP Constitution, 2006 - Appendix C)
Branches are encouraged to seek gender balance in their delegations. Women should make up at least one-third of a branch’s delegation.
(SSP Consitution, 2006 - Section 7.2(b))
Did you never wonder why there was a gender balance of 5:2 in your branch - what barriers there were to wimmins' participation, how the format and organisation of your activities might have put wimmin off getting involved; look at solutions to these barriers and actively seek to recruit wimmin members?
Rather than whinging about poor men not being able to stand in council elections (is this really the most important thing that the SSP is involved with??) perhaps more time examining how to engage with women and with real politics might have meant your time in the SSP was more productively used.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
John Grean said:
Yes - I did think you were a wanker - and now here's the proof
q_w_e_r_t_y said:
To answer your earlier question, no I was never a member of the SSP (thankfully). Though I used to think if I lived in Scotland I would not only vote for tem, but join them. I have been spared this humiliation.
However, I was once a member of the SWp so I know well about feminist wankers trying to impose themselves on a so-called socialist organisation. Oddly enough the SWp are supporting Sheridan whuich shows how extreme the radical feminist morons of the SSP are!
The perfect example of this is your use of the word wimmin. I can't read this without cringing at how slimy and strange it sounds. Why don't the feminists create a feminist party like in Sweden rather than trying to destroy the working class movement in the UK. Because nobody would fucking vote for you, including women who hate you nearly as much as men!
Maybe MI5 want you to infiltrate and destroy the left!
Finally, if Carolyn Leckie is such a radical feminist why does she dress like a teenage boys wet dream of how his school teacher would look! ie. red high heel shoes, fish net stockings, short skirt, tight top, and red lipstick. I was going to include the photo but it is a larger size than the u75 limit.
as has already been well established, you won't have to worry about 50/50 representation after 2007 because the SSP will be all but dead. Happy now?
Philbc03 said:
Assuming your are the same friom the UKLN and you are a member of SPEW (socialist party) it is becoming ever more apparent why the working class voters of Stoke fucked off your councillor in favour of the BNP.
I seem to recall you quoting some wealthy middle class American feminist on the ukln and then saying you didn't agree with a lot of what she said. But you admired her opposition to pornography! Are you a homosexual?
NO, I doubt you are because most gays enjoy porn as much as straight men. So, what are you? A male feminist? YES.
I hope it helps get you laid with the radical feminists because everyone else (especially the working class) is either laughing at you or hates you for it 'politically correct' Phil.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
Hmmm, lets see, you've just informed us of your extensive collection of masturbatory material, and did a bit of disgusting slavering over Carolyn Leckie (who isnt a radical feminist btw, but a socialist feminist) and her choice of clothes and you're calling us wankers
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
John Grean said:
Oh my good grief
...not only does the left-wing have feminists in its ranks
...not only do those feminists take equality to extremes
...but there are even (gasp) male feminists there too
Any would think we were trying to revolutionise the fundamental basis of society or something...
(note that strictly speaking a man cant be a feminist tho, but pro-feminist.
A feminist man is an oxymoron - as opposed to John Grean - who is just your regular kind of moron)
q_w_e_r_t_y said:Hmmm, lets see, you've just informed us of your extensive collection of masturbatory material, and did a bit of disgusting slavering over Carolyn Leckie (who isnt a radical feminist btw, but a socialist feminist) and her choice of clothes and you're calling us wankers
Please, I wasn't slavering over Carolyn Leckie - she appears to be an obnoxious, arrogant arsehole. Didn't she get herself chucked out of the Scottish Parliament much to the irritation of the other SSP MSP's.
Regarding her choice of clothes, it would appear to me that she dresses in a sexually provocative way in order to attract sexual attention to herself (presumably from men). No doubt you will tell me that women wear short skirts or high heels or fish-nets because they feel good, or because women like wearing them. However, it may not be the most appropriate attire for an anti-trident protest!
To me all feminists are the same whatever name they choose to use. Feminists should create a feminist party like in Sweden and please stay well-a-fucking-way from the socialist movement and the working class.
Regarding pornography and masturbation, I think that both are perfectly acceptable. If you don't like it don't do it, but please don't tell me I can't. See how many people vote SSP if you put your plan to abolish adult porn at the front of your manifesto! You're a fucking joke!
q_w_e_r_t_y said:Any would think we were trying to revolutionise the fundamental basis of society or something...
What a pompous suggestion that feminism will revolutionise the fundamental basis of society! I thought that was to do with the ownership of the means of production. But I didn't really think the SSP had much of a Marxist analysis.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
John Grean said:
Women do 67% of the world’s work yet get only 10% of world income and own 1% of the world's property.
Women *are* the working class and the beneficiaries of socialism - disproportionately so.
q_w_e_r_t_y said:
If you have access to the UK left network on Yahoo groups, then if you look back to about March 2006 I listed a response to the same argument which (imo) comprehensively destroyed it's basis as being complete bull-shit. (my login was indy_thoughts).
Women and feminists are NOT the working class, though there are some women in low-paid menial jobs. The Money Programme in January 2006 repiorted there are now more women millionaires in the 18-45 age group than men.
Just one example of how the feminists out-of-date info from the 1970's has been superceded!
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
John Grean said:
The data is from 1997 - World Development Indicators, produced by the UN -
And indeed it is true - there are more female millionaires in the 18-45 age bracket (but not overall), yet women in the UK still only own 45% of UK property (not including pensions), despite making up 52% of the population. Women's average hourly pay is still 17.1% below that of men, and women still do the majority of unpaid domestic labour, depite the amount of paid labour done by men and women now being equal.
While the UK is unquestionably more equal - in labour, earnings and property terms it still follows the global trend.
q_w_e_r_t_y said:
There were less women because women are less interested in joining political parties. Some activites just attract more of one sex than another. I'll give you an example, I go to dancing leasons and in my class there are more women than men; it's not that men are discriminated against or there are barriers, there is no discrimination and no barriers to men joining my dancing class, it's just that men are less interested in general. It was the same with the SSP branch I was in, nobody was sexist, we put up no barriers to women joining, it was just that women in general were less interested. It honestly was as simple as that. We didn't need any gender balance forced and we shouldn't have lost deligates as a result.
EDITED TO ADD -
FUCK EM, FUCK THE SSP, I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THEM AND THIS SEXIST BULLSHIT.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
duplicate post
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
The SSP might recruit and retain more members if they ran dancing lessons. They'd certainly get more girls to join.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
