Gmail - One Hell of A Debate

3/17/13
Gmail - one hell of a debate
anoop kumar <anoopkheri@gmail.com>
one hell of a debate

anoop kumar <anoopkheri@gmail.com> To: anoop kumar <anoopkheri@gmail.com> Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:22 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: anoop kumar Date: Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:33 PM Subject: one hell of a debate
Charlotte Bence
Spring, manchester
One female speaker? Is that it? Like Comment Wednesday at 1:52pm via mobile John Game and 47 others like this. Sarah Grey http://en.wiktionary.org/ wiki/mansplain
about an hour ago Like 2
Naomi Bee Sometimes it's almost as if sexism is still a huge problem in the left!
Wednesday at 2:53pm via mobile Like 21
Charlie Winstanley The gender ratio is an issue, all I can say is that it was unintentional and we are still modifying the timetable
Charlotte Bence You've got one woman, and the multiculturalism panel is two white men. That's a problem.
Charlie Winstanley I sent you a PM detailing exactly the woman we were attempting to put on the panel for that discussion Charlotte
Wednesday at 3:10pm via mobile Like
Robert Jack Nice to see as ever the left can offer supportive and non confrontational criticism. Would it have hurt to have simply asked if there was a reason? To essentially level accusations of sexism here at a comrade who is quite widely known in the area not to be strikes me as being quite crass and arrogant too. Sexism is a problem in the left but I don't think anyone whose organised the Spring conference has contributed to it. Its been organised by two full time
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a2cdff32e5&view=lg&msg=13d78d6af5722772 1/27
3/17/13
workers based upon personal contacts. As you know and actually point out, as in wider society, sexism is a problem in the left, and there is a hugely disproportionate amount of men compared to women in the left. We need to address that as a movement but in the meantime, is it sexist that I sometimes go on meetings and actions that have alot more men than women? Should I just sit at home, remaining inactive, until the left is sorted out and we have a gender balance in our ranks? I think the idea that its a problem that the speakers on multiculturalism are white is ridiculous too. 90% of the country is white, for one thing, so if you get two speakers, presumably well informed people on the topic, theres a high chance they will both be white. Again, did it not occur to you that the organisers simply didn't know any suitable non-white people to talk on this subject? And do you actually think someones skin colour impacts upon their ability to discuss an academic topic?
Wednesday at 4:39pm Like 4
Rachel Eborall So it looks as though there is only one woman speaking during the whole day! I have to say its disappointing.
Charlie Winstanley Not that I want to associate it specifically with this discussion (as we had been angling for it for a while) but literally in the last few minutes we confirmed Esther Leslie on the multiculturalism panel! There will hopefully be one or two other additions also in the next week.
Charlotte Bence It's really good that there's an additional female speaker. But still nobody who is not white on a multiculturalism panel, out of three speakers?
Charlotte Bence I'm not trying to be a hypercritical arsehole here, but this stuff does matter.
Michael Black Fair play charlie for puttin in the work to organise this, if only the same could be said of the rest of these whingers
Charlotte Bence Michael, if you think it's whinging to consider it important that a panel on multiculturalism has someone who is not white on it then I think you need to have a word with yourself. Charlie and the other organisers have done a great job pulling together what exists for the event so far,
3/17/13
nobody's denying that. But I do think constructive criticism from people who want to see this event succeed, and be relevant to whole swathes of people is valid here.
Charlie Winstanley Every one on that panel deserves to be there - every one of our speakers deserves to be there. We said from the off that we were going for quality discussions and we wouldn't pick people we didn't know that well or weren't suited to discussions just to play demographic football with the rota. We are putting this conference on in our spare time and we will most likely lose money on it, neither of us are professionals or part of a wider organisation helping us out. If the discussions look interesting then please come down. If not then don't. Sorry Charlotte but if that's not good enough for you then so be it.
Ian Black I think billy mckinstry from the later discussion wouldve been a good option for this, being white and male aside, he did grow up in south africa and maintains a keen interest in affairs with the african community
Robert Jack If theres people who don't think a talk on multiculturalism is relevant unless it comes from someone with the same skin colour as them, I think thats a problem that they need to look at themselves
Charlotte Bence Robert, please do not accuse me of levelling accusations of sexism against Charlie when I have not done so. I am not saying that the organisers of this event are sexist. I am saying that maybe a couple more women on the panel might be a good idea. And Charlie appears to have agreed with me on that one. I am not saying that the three panelists on the multiculturalism panel will not be well informed on the subject and offer interesting perspectives. Quite the opposite, I think all three of the speakers will deliver interesting, relevant talks and I'd imagine there'd be a good debate from the floor in this session. I for one am looking forward to it. I am not saying that this is not "good enough". You've organised this in your spare time around a full time job and I think, for what it's worth, that this conference could be brilliant, and will be relevant, timely and interesting. My opinion is that this is a great idea, and I know how much work goes in to this kind of thing because I've done similar stuff myself. In no way am I trying to belittle what you've done, as
3/17/13
seems to be implied above, because I am not THAT much of a dick head. THE ONLY POINTS I am making is that more women speakers would be good, and that a panel discussion on multiculturalism could, in my opinion, be better if it was, well, multicultural. I don't think that's such a terrible thing to say.
Robert Jack See thats alot nicer and meaningful than just saying 'One female speaker? Thats it?', so maybe in future when you want to offer such constructive critical opinion it would be helpful if you did it politely in the first instance, otherwise it leads to arguments like this which contain alot of bad feeling
Charlotte Bence I asked a question. Well, two. That is not aggressive, or confrontational. It's asking questions. There is a difference.
Ian Black Its easy to see why it was misconstrued as an accusation of sexism charlotte, given that you posted the question just after naomis assertation that sexism is still a big issue in the left. Unless naomis comment was just arbitrary, one we would all agree with. It does read as tho 1 female speaker=organiser sexist because the left is sexist because all men are sexist=the end. Not that im saying that was your intention but thats how alot of people seem to have read it. curious.
Wednesday at 6:15pm Like
Robert Jack I think you know full well how it came across and I'm not in the business of having to teach people manners over the internet but I think you seem quite disrespectful and I don't want to waste anymore time having a pointless discussion with you about it as your clearly not willing to acknowledge it
Michael Black I think the comments of naomi and rachel were particularly disgraceful
Naomi Bee I was going to say that my comment was perhaps a little flippant, but seeing that women are now being accused of being 'disgraceful' for suggesting that having only one woman speaker is unacceptable I think it pretty much still stands.
Robert Jack Well thats one person Naomi. I haven't said that. I don't think they were disgraceful. So I think in my case it doesn't stand - thanks for acknowledging that your comment was flippant
3/17/13
Naomi Bee Considering that this thread now consists of men taking a woman to task for pointing out that yes, having only one woman speaking at a one day conference is sexist I think my comment was actually quite reasonable.
Robert Jack I was taking her to point on the way in which you both mentioned it, as is clear, and I think you too now are trying to find a post-hoc justification for what was a rude way to address the fact that there weren't many women on the speakers list
Charlotte Bence Agreed Naomi. But then apparently I've been accusing the organisers of being sexist, I am disrespectful and I have no manners. Feel a bit like I'm being accused of being a 'hysterical female' to be honest. Cheers, comrade.
Naomi Bee Why the hell should women be required to be polite about sexism!/
Robert Jack Ok thats fine then, use the social oppression of women to justify being rude and arrogant, I personally find this an offensive misuse of the feminist movement that has set us back but if it helps you get through life
Ian Black I agree, i get the feeling naomi and charlotte are now trying to derail what was a partially heated but ultimatly constructive and resolved discussion.
Michael Black Well with wats went on over the SWP im glad you feel you can be 'flippant' with accusations of sexism about something someone has put a lot of work into organisin
Charlotte Bence But the thing is, I wasn't rude and arrogant. So I'm actually not using the oppression of women to justify my behaviour. At all.
Naomi Bee No, I'm objecting to the fact that woman are being called 'disgraceful' for raising the matter at all! Rachel's comment was that it was disappointing that there was only one woman speaking, and this is 'disgraceful'?
Robert Jack If you can't recognise flaws in how you behave then as I said, I'm not going to try and teach you how to behave, your an adult, and I'd feel my time would be wasted, I just think your setting our
3/17/13
movement back because you alienate people who are on your side, who consider themselves feminists, like the organisers. I think you'll find very quickly no one wants to listen to you no matter how right you are if you are rude about it
Ian Black Rachels comment came after a rebuttal from the organiser, one she clearly didnt read. You allways get headline readers i suppose.
Charlotte Bence I think you, Robert, need to consider how you talk to women. You've been both patronising and offensive by turn and haven't actually provided any evidence for my alleged rudeness. You just keep saying I am rude, and that nobody will listen to me, and that I am accusing the organisers of sexism for questioning why there is one female speaker so far. That is not rude, neither is it arrogant.
Robert Jack Stop trying to transfer your own attitude onto me - you'll find if your rude to people people will probably be rude back to you
Laurel Dean Fucking hell this thread... it's almost as if sexism is still a huge problem in the left!
Robert Jack Its almost as if the left is full of arrogant people who hide their own characters flaws behind their politics!
Jack Pilgrim Where are you Charlie Winstanley?

Charlotte Bence OK, so to summarise- asking where the female speakers are is rude, tantamount to accusing the organisers of sexism, arrogant, representative of a flaw in my character and disrespectful? OK. I'm glad we've cleared that up.
Robert Jack We haven't cleared it up because your above post was just your opinion. Asking 'One female speaker? Is that it?' is in my opinion a rude and unconstructive way to address the issue, especially given the effort put in by the organisers of this conference. Could you not have just asked 'I'm a bit concerned why there is only one female speaker, is there a reason for this?'
Alexander Carver Sorry to potentially patronise or confront anyone, but "multiculturalism" is not "multiracialism" - it's the policy of treating ethnic
3/17/13
cultures as equally valid, to be promoted and protected by law. Anyone can address this subject if they are familiar with it. If it did in fact mean "race relations" it would indeed make sense that someone from a uk ethnic minority have a place on the panel, but even then it wouldn't be mandatory. There seems to be an idea that racism and misogyny can only be addressed by racial minorities and women; whilst it would be laughable to disregard their input on these fronts, it is still deeply mistaken to see them as impossible to understand by anyone but their subjects. This attitude - imported from America seems to be increasingly in vogue on the fractured and alienated uk left. I completely agree with a policy of weighted panels (or officer positions etc) precisely because it is the simplest way of fighting sexism on the left and in general - more women on positions of authority to counteract prevailing attitudes in men and of course, other women. On this basis, it would be good to have more women speakers at this conference.
Alexander Carver @Laurel Dean: "Fucking hell this thread... it's almost as if sexism is still a huge problem in the left!" What has been sexist in your opinion? I'm not going to evaluate what you say, at all, I'm just interested.
Alexander Carver Robert Jack - I don't think it will be very useful to try and prove one way or the other the tone your comments or the opening comments were made in. Getme.
Robert Jack Well thats where this whole discussion has come from so...
Alex Baker It seems unfair, to say the least, for you to have a go at the people above calling this lineup sexist for being 'unconstructive'. At a time when people are being kicked out of the SWP using EXACTLY the language youve just used for asking similar questions about sexism! The line up is whitemale heavy- unrepresentative and therefore sexist and racially problematic, regardless of how wonderful the gents on it might be. Calm down, take the criticism. Work to address it, and you might stop getting rude comments.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a2cdff32e5&view=lg&msg=13d78d6af5722772
7/27
3/17/13
Michael Black Charlie you wud be as well pullin this thread cuz these eejits arnt gonna stop. Continue your good work and burn on all the armchair haterz
Ian Black Alex, mabye if you had taken the time to read the comments before making one yourself you will have discovered that, from the organisers own mouth(or keyboard) the line up/event was a work in progress, that in the time of the discussion a female speaker had confirmed and attempts had been made to organise other female speakers. Infact everytime this convo reflares up it seems nobody has read much beyond the original post and the comments they feel they should "like"/ I feel im deffo wi robert jack on this one, this isnt a political argument this is a smug, elitist arsehole argument and by entering into it we all just lost that little but more of our souls.
Alexander Carver "Racially problematic" - again, I will not comment on what you say, can you explain what was or is racially problematic about the composition of the panels, and more importantly, why that is.
Huw Williams Oh dear............

Alex Baker Ian, I read the thread before I posted. I still think the criticisms are perfectly valid, and yknow, theyre criticisms, not apocalyptic pronunciations of final judgement upon your heads. Like I said, take it, learn from it etc. Dont fling rubbish back.
Wednesday at 9:04pm Edited Like 6
Michael Black Nah alex, when sumone unjustifiably calls my mate a sexist and pisses on his hard work whilst doin fuck all themselves then i will back him up. Its called solidarity, ya mite wanna try it sumtime
Lauren Velvick I'm actually really heartened by this thread - valid criticisms raised in a straightforward, if not cheerfully kind way, addressed by the organisers with sincerity and effort.
Ian Black Hey Charlie Winstanley do we all get pms?

Charlotte Bence Michael, I didn't call your mate a sexist. That's simply not true. And you've no idea what I've done myself in the past so please don't
3/17/13
make assumptions.
Charlie Bramley A bit late on this thread. However, I'd just like to say some of the comments here (especially Michael's above) reveal quite a sinister tone to this debate that I find very concerning. Making a completely reasonable criticism about the lack of women on a panel shouldn't be met with a tirade of verbal abuse about 'manners' and 'behaviour' camouflaged under the really shady playground politics of 'solidarity' and 'backing your mate up'.
Michael Black Granted charlotte and i appreciate youv at least tried to explain your position and criticism in a somewhat comradely manner. But by backin up the snide and crankish behavior of naomi you are doin us an urself no favours
Michael Black Charlie, You find my 'tone' concerning but you dont find 'flippant' accusations of sexism concerning?
Charlie Winstanley right this really has descended into personal shit now - please let's call it a day. i know i said my peace a lot earlier and don't need anything else said
Naomi Bee Charlie: what's the name of the group organising this event?
Charlie Winstanley no name, it's a personal project between me and my longstanding friend Marcus
Naomi Bee OK, just wanted to add it to the list of organisations to avoid in future.
Charlie Winstanley no great loss

Charlie Bramley Michael, I think your positioning of the word 'flippant' in single quotation marks is selfrevelatory, since there were no 'flippant' accusations of sexism. The conference situated itself as representing 'a variety of backgrounds' yet published a list of speakers in which there was only one female speaker. Someone pointed this out as a valid criticism. There are absolutely valid grounds that a sexist bias was involved with this programming. The comments in response to this valid concern were typical and consistent with ignorance of sexism as an issue. There were also some noticeable abusive comments which were completely out of order, but
3/17/13
again, depressingly predictable.

Naomi Bee Also a failure to recognise that none of this occurs in a vacuum. To you, it's just that YOUR conference doesn't have many women speaking, however, to a lot of people, including, I would think, the three of us who made comments, it's ANOTHER event that lacks women speakers.
Naomi Bee The fact that women may fail to be polite to you about this is because we get sick of the fact it keeps happening, to say nothing of the way we are treated when we point it out.
Michael Black Charlie bramley hate to embarrass you but if you bothered to read the thread youll see 'flippant' was how the accuser described her own comments. Im not gonna try not to comment any more out of respect to my friend charlie winstanley who has been very polite during all of this. I wish him all the best and call on everyone serious about the left to get involved and help improve this project
Al Mc Salford I would imagine these are themes that may be discussed on the day. Politics full stop is overwhelmingly white and male, and nobody thinks tokentistic choices of speaker is anything but patronising surely, so whats the answer?
Charlie Bramley Yeah I saw that, but I thought she was being too polite. It wasn't flippant at all, it was absolutely valid. She said as much herself in the same comment...
Robert Jack As Al Mc above suggests, do you then think the organisers should have picked speakers purely on the basis of their gender, regardless of whether or not they were the best people to speak about the chosen subject?
Naomi Bee Thank you. The answer would perhaps involve taking criticism on board, and not bullying women who raise issues such as this.
Robert Jack Well this just takes us back to the original issue! If you had said 'This looks interesting, but why are there so few female speakers?' you would have probably have got a better response from people! I'm not even an organiser but I know Charlie, knows he's a good socialist and a good feminist, so I thought it was repugnant that someone sole
3/17/13
comment on all the hard work he put in should be 'Only one woman speaker, is that it?'!!!!
Charlie Bramley Precisely Naomi. No, Robert, that would be tokenism. No-one is asking for tokenism. However, assuming that it's either men, or tokenism is the same fundamental sexist assumption born out of ignorance that helps explain why this situation emerged in the first place.
Sam Fisher That comment is not nearly as repugnant as this diatribe against women who dare to bring up this issue, or your description of someone as a 'good feminist' and the continual reference to 'manners' in order to further undermine valid points and sideline people's concerns. Worse still. To try and paint them as irrationally harping from the sidelines.
Robert Jack Then what do you expect two men who work full time to do, when they've organised a conference based on personal contacts, to remedy the fatc most of the speakers are male!
Robert Jack If they cant win by deliberately finding female speakers but cant win by just picking speakers based on merit than they cant win at all!
Charlie Bramley 'what do you expect two men who work full time to do' This really says it all.
Robert Jack what does it say?

Charlie Bramley The point is Robert, they can easily find female speakers based on merit, if they cared enough to look, and it's only the extremely ignorant perspective of sexism and sexists that pretend otherwise.
Naomi Bee Think about why your 'personal contacts' are mostly men?
Charlotte Bence Robert, to save any further confusion and for the avoidance of doubt: my question about the sole female speaker was not an allegation of sexism against the organisers. But! In your comments to me and other women this afternoon, you have been sexist. That right there is an allegation of sexism. You have patronised and belittled the women on this thread in wholly unacceptable ways,
3/17/13
and that is sexist. Are we clear? Me telling you your comments are sexist is an allegation of sexism. Me asking why there's only one female speaker is not an allegation of sexism.
Robert Jack But as before mentioned, left wing politics is generally at the moment male dominated. I don't agree with this, I know charlie doesn't agree with it, but thats the reality, so when he's organising a conference in his spare time, how can he and one friend alone remedy it?
Naomi Bee Absolutely agree with Charlotte. There has been some really blatant sexist bullying on this thread.
Robert Jack If I've shown you a lack of respect its because I think your attitude at the start of this thread indicated a lack of respect on your part. As I said, if you had addressed *the same concern* in a more polite way, you would have got a more polite response!
Sam Fisher Clime down Robert. The comments are hardly something you wouldn't say in-front of your parents and it's bloody facebook for crying out loud, not the royal court.
Robert Jack to avoid getting swamped here, seeing as i'm talking to three different people i'm gona summarise where i think this has gone
BigTim Roberts love me some solidarity.

Robert Jack Well Sam I'm not saying they are shocking, I'm saying they are rude and disrespectful towards people who have worked hard to put on a conference
Robert Jack And because they were rude, they've been responded rudely to by me. Its not got anything to do with the fact the person being rude was female, its the fact they were being rude
Sam Fisher On 'left wing politics'. Are the issues raised by feminists etc, etc, no longer within the remit of 'left wing politics' anymore...? Thats sad.....
Naomi Bee Charlotte has not been anything approaching rude once. And as I have said before, it's not unreasonable for women to be sick of this kind of
3/17/13
situation.
Charlotte Bence I think this has started because you took issues with my phrasing, as is your right, but instead of being reasonable you have attempted to bully me. You didn't like it when I stood up for myself, and you resorted to sexist language in an attempt to silence me. Didn't work very well though, did it. Oh, and FYI, this comment boarders on rude. What I've said before- not rude.
Robert Jack Can you point out the sexist language charlotte
Sam Fisher TBH, I don't even think anyone should be trying to justify their so-called 'rudeness' or manners. Blatant derail.
Lina Conlin This is none of my business but seems pretty relevant -http://geekfeminism.wikia. com/wiki/Tone_argument - There is a reason most people are taking an issue with what you're saying Robert
Robert Jack Nah, this a case of someone hiding behind their gender and the politics surrounding it to justify their behaviour. If you want to know about tone, look at the tone of the original comment that sparked this thread
Andy Lawson this thread looks like what it is - 2 women raising valid concerns, and a load of brocialists jumping on them. seriously guys, sort yourselves out.
Sam Fisher ^^^

Kieran Crowe The tone of the original comment is fine - that is, it is a bemused question. And a highly relevant one. Is that it?
Robert Jack In fact in terms of mentioning sexist language, I haven't even used anything gender specific besides the obvious ones of peoples names and the word 'he' or 'she'
Robert Jack So thats clearly a lie

Ollie Sutherland This thread is part of the problem of sexism (on the left). Really embarrassing and pathetic that Robert and co. can't see this
3/17/13
Robert Jack I think its a problem of stuck up and arrogant middle class students thinking they can put the world to rights from their computer screens personally but i spose its down to your intepretation
Robert Jack Apologies to anyone whose not a student I've just noticed alot of the people on here dishing out this crap are students
Wednesday at 11:41pm Edited Like
Ollie Sutherland ^ Leftist man uses 'feminism=middle-class' to beat down criticisms of his privilege
Alex Baker ^and there it is folks, the dismissal of feminism as a bourgeois' concern.
Naomi Bee Yep, this is left sexism bingo right here.

Robert Jack nah mate, i'm a working class feminist so i know that ones not true. I just hate middle class preachers such as yourselves
BigTim Roberts http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=owrVQebWCtc

Robert Jack I think your a blight on our movement and do it absolutely no favours with your bizzare lust for criticising people on your side to make yourselves feel superior
Ollie Sutherland To make ourselves feel superior? WTF are you talking about!?
Ollie Sutherland I guess feminism is just about women being superior to men! (fail)
Robert Jack The fact that you have this obsession with privilige and finding sexism where it doesnt exist to make urself feel smug and superior to other socialists and feminists
Ollie Sutherlandhttp://ideologicallyimpure.files. wordpress.com/2011/02/feminist.jpg

Charlotte Bence You have accused me of being rude. You have said I am disrespectful. You have said I have a character flaw. You have accused me of hiding behind my gender. In all of these statements
3/17/13
you have attempted to silence me on my original, perfectly innocent question to the organisers, which has since been resolved but you cannot let it go. You have patronised and commented aggressively to the women who have participated on this thread. This is sexism.
Andy Lawson robert - y u no stop digging?

Naomi Bee Sorry, I'm a feminst because it makes me feel superior to other feminists?! Interesting.
Robert Jack Nah its not charlotte its called being criticised
Robert Jack Nah, you pick up on imaginary instances of sexist behaviour to make yourself feel superior to other feminists, such as myself or charlie
Alexander Carver i think it's time to kill this and open it up elsewhere if necessary. I do not think the organisers are at fault at all here, an argument that has been waiting to happen has broken out - but it's not connected to this conference.
Naomi Bee Again: shut up women. Not surprising.

Robert Jack Its a trend thats emerged recently. Lots of reasons for it but alot of people would put it down to people like you lacking the bottle to have it out with the real enemies of womens liberation and instead picking softer targets, such as people actually on your side
Alexander Carver Not at all Naomi.

Alexander Carver That's really shit you'd say that, what...

BigTim Roberts alex, i think she was referring to another comment.

BigTim Roberts at least... i hope so.

BigTim Roberts SPRING! Saturday, 11 May 2013... a one-day conference to be held in the Friends Meeting House. Discussions on the day to be overshadowed by the evil looks flying around the place.
15/27 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=a2cdff32e5&view=lg&msg=13d78d6af5722772
3/17/13
Alexander Carver Seriously, this is not a debate that was started by the fact the conference (which i am completely unattached to btw) only had one woman speaker this morning - that was addressed pretty quickly. This is now a debate on what sexism is, how to draw comrades attention to it, and what can be done to change sexism. That's a huge topic.
Andy Lawson stop accusing women of being 'rude' or 'disgraceful' for raising concerns about representation at a conference. it's one step away from reminding them to 'know their place'
Robert Jack I'd imagine if you keyboard warriors dedicated as much time to actual anti-sexist pro womens liberation activism as you did to trying to find sexism that doesnt exist in we'd have made alot more progress as a movement by now...
Robert Jack So women can't be rude anymore? (I didn't use the word disgraceful)
Charlie Bramley As someone said earlier, the conference does not exist in a vacuum. The people organising it can be drawn in to all of those things Alexander. I might add that some of the other participants chosen by the conference programmers are not exactly known for their awareness or respect for feminism.
Charlotte Bence I don't feel superior to Charlie, actually. Never once said that, or implied it. As I've said, repeatedly, I think what Charlie's done here is great and I hope the conference is a great success. I do feel superior to you though. Not because I think I am a better feminist by virtue of my gender, because I'm not so ridiculous as to think that men cannot be feminists- there are, for example, a number of make feminists on this thread. But you're not one of them. In your conduct today you have proved yourself to be nothing but a sexist bully. That's why I feel superior to you- because I'm not sexist, and I'm not a bully. I'm also capable of engaging in a political discussion by addressing the points the person I am debating has actually made. Lamentably, it does not appear that the same could be said for you. You have read exactly what you have chosen to read into all the comments I have made, ignorantly ignoring the substance of what I have actually said in an attempt to paint me as a hysterical woman, man hating feminist. Which, once again, is sexist.
16/27
3/17/13
Robert Jack Well there you go, you've got what you've wanted out of this discussion at last, as I said, you feel superior to someone
Robert Jack You've satisfied your need to feel like your part of the intellectual vanguard fighting swathes of ingnorance, without even needing to leave the house, fantastic
Charlotte Bence I've left the house, actually. I've been to work, where I've represented a union member in a disciplinary hearing. I've also helped organise a meeting for a campaign I'm helping to set up, and I've found out I got delegated to my union's conference. But there you go again, making assumptions. You said earlier you didn't think people who do fuck all should criticise Charlie, which I wasn't doing. But then I also don't do fuck all. So you were woefully incorrect on both counts.
Alexander Carver " I might add that some of the other participants chosen by the conference programmers are not exactly known for their awareness or respect for feminism." ah. Well it looks like agendas have been set prior to this. I did wonder how things escalated so quickly. Robert Jack FWIW Naomi Bee is (i think) a really comitted trade unionist and yes, takes on male oppression outside of the left via campaigns for the living wage and so forth. I'm sure there's much more to you than that Naomi, that's the bits i know
Yesterday at 12:00am Edited Like 1
Naomi Bee So, women should point out sexism, quietly, and politely. And they should only point out the 'real' sexism, which they will know, as men will tell them.
Yesterday at 12:00am Like 10
Charlie Bramley Not really actually, this thread sparked my interest, and only THEN, did I see who else was selected as part of the programme. It's relevant, because it gives an insight into the thought behind selection.
Charlotte Bence Yeah- Naomi, we can stop all this feminism nonsense. The men will tell us when to fight women's oppression. Haven't you got, I dunno, socks to darn for your man, or something else to be getting on with?
Yesterday at 12:02am via mobile Like 8
17/27
3/17/13
Naomi Bee I am managing to cook dinner while I do this, will that count?
Alexander Carver depends, is for a man or a cat?

Charlotte Bence I don't think so. You're obviously not dedicating every fibre of your being to preparing an edifying, wholesome meal for your man. Jerry Hall said women should be whores in the bedroom, maids in the lounge and chefs in the kitchen. There's nothing there about fighting sexism on the Internet, so think on.
Naomi Bee Could someone say feminism is 'divisive' so I can shout bingo and get on with stuff?
Charlotte Bence I am pleased with the way I managed to include assumptions of the heteronormative in there. Obviously I have been paying close attention to Robert, and the skilful master class on making assumptions about people he has provided us with today. Woman done learn stuff!
Charlotte Bence - Robert, so we're clear, *that's* what me being rude looks like.
Tom Walker Just catching up on this and I'm in full agreement with Charlotte. Further, in all honesty I ain't gonna be coming unless the organisers have a serious rethink. Women speakers (and black, Asian speakers) aren't for bolting on afterwards once you're criticised, if you don't think about these things from the start then this is what happens - a sexist mess. That isn't playing "demographic football with the rota", a phrase that betrays a very wrongheaded approach I'm afraid - it should be ABC.
Ria Curls As a working class feminist,identifying femme bisexual female and from a mixed racial heritage (because all these identities clearly matters so much) I agree with all of Robert Jacks points on this thread. I believe that Charlottes OP was put badly and needed to re phrased in a manner that was less hostile. It is great that you are trying to add more women to the panel, the left has a male majority, but there are better ways to address this issue opposed to flippantly throwing around the word sexism at anyone that doesn't agree with your point. This even looks really good.Sadly I cannot make it as its a bit
3/17/13
too far.I guess you all didnt check your privilege on that now did you!?
Alexander Carver Since when is living in Manchester a privilige?

Yesterday at 1:00am Like
Ria Curls hahaha my working class single parent identity wasn't recognised and a car hasnt been arranged to personally ferry me to this event, whilst a nanny hasnt been hired to look after my child either.
Charlotte Bence I haven't flippantly thrown around the word sexism because Robert didn't agree with me. I've used the word sexism because that's the word for the way he's behaved.
Ria Curls I personally did not see any sexism there.From my feminist point of view.Hey you look for something hard enough,that you really really really want to find, you will start too see it I suppose.
Ria Curls what exactly was sexist about anything that was said,as Mr Carver ( I hope that's how he identifies himself) said...? I would really like to know,so that in the future I can see when someone is being sexist towards me when I'm not realising its even happening...
Alexander Carver "I've used the word sexism because that's the word for the way he's behaved." so what your saying is, if we cannot look at his comments and find sexism ourselves, we are equally damned? That's not fair. I said i wouldn't evaluate what you said was sexist - i'm not going to say "you are wrong" - i want to know exactly what it was about what he said that was sexist.
Louise Hernon The above 'discussion' has reminded me why I gave up on being part of the organised left. Was going to come to this but not now. Ffs Charlotte only asked a perfectly reasonable question
Charlie Bramley I'm sure Charlotte will respond in her own way, but from my perspective, the sexism in the comments have resulted firstly from an underestimation of the importance of Charlotte's original question matched with a ridiculous overestimation of the importance of how to state this question. Secondly, the comments made to Charlotte (and others) were offensive in a number of ways, but primarily, they based themselves on the idea that
3/17/13
women raising this issue can only be considered relevant if they meet particular standards of 'politeness', 'manners', and 'behaviours' all designated by Robert himself. Surely, I don't need to say why these traits are historically relevant to issues of sexism. Then, there was the claim that the women were 'hiding behind their gender', another completely unsubstantiated claim, again completely ignorant of the very real and valid concern raised at the outset. These are just some of the reasons...
Alexander Carver Okay. "Then, there was the claim that the women were 'hiding behind their gender', another completely unsubstantiated claim, again completely ignorant of the very real and valid concern raised at the outset." - can you give the full quote, I missed that.
Ria Curls If someone who was a self identifying male had phrased the original post like that, I still would of found it to be hostile.
Yesterday at 1:25am Edited Like
Louise Hernon Responses to Charlotte don't look much different to bullying to me. She asked a question. Whatever happened to comradely discussion.
Nicky Grace Exactly - Charlotte's original question was 'One female speaker? Is that it?'. Hardly justified the aggressive unpleasant response, absolutely no different to Cameron and his 'calm down dear'! And Lou, to talk of the 'organised left' is highly overstating the case ...
Louise Hernon Actually in retrospect not a reason not to come. That would only mean less women there. I have been a Marxist for 30 years but some of the responses on here make 'creeping feminism' bloody attractive
Yesterday at 1:57am via mobile Like
Charlotte Bence I found Robert's comments sexist because rather than address the point I had made about the lack of women's representation on panels at this event, he chose to make assumptions about me based on a misinterpretation of tone. He has criticised me fir what he perceived to be an aggressive tone in my original question, but instead of asking me to consider how other people might interpret my question he has chosen to attack me, repeatedly.
20/27
3/17/13
Above I have clearly stated that I am not accusing the organisers of sexism, and in fact Charlie has contacted me separately to tell me that the lack of women speakers is something the organisers have noticed and are working on, which is great news. I've said many, many times now on this thread that I think this event looks great and I am absolutely not attacking the organisers- far from it. But, even though I have made these points over and over, publicly, Robert has persisted in personally attacking me. He has said I have a character flaw, that I am disrespectful and that I am rude. In the tone he has adopted and the words he's used to me and other women here the overall impression I have from his contributions is one of "women, know your place". He has tried to bulky me, and other women here with his aggressive manner. He has been patronising. He has accused me of hiding behind my gender, but has not engaged with the points I have made because it is inconvenient to him to do so and does not fit his agenda of trying to silence the minor criticism I had of this event in it's current form which the organisers tell me they are addressing. That is sexism.
Emma Nate There's no perspective here at all. The amount of backlash for someone raising the issue of lack of representation is ridiculous. To not allow someone to be pissed off about not having enough women and POC (a real and important issue) and then to justify masses of retribution at people for raising the issue in a manner not deemed obsequious enough (a non issue). Robert jack u are by far the worst "working class feminist" I have ever seen.
Alyesha Ingrouille just christ, I read the first few dozen posts and then skipped to the end, so apologies if I'm just repeating other people; Charlotte - your original post came across as shitty when I read it too, maybe you didn't mean it to, but if someone said that to me I'd presume they were having a pop. Since you then said you weren't, job done, no need for all the other guys to start being dicks. Seriously, how did that turn into a 160 odd post thread? Incidentally, Charlie, I'm not known/published/etc, but I know a fair bit on multiculturalism, class, and so on. I dunno quite what angle you're looking at it in the talk, but I'd be interested in speaking on the subject (and I even have a vagina, so bonus points all round ;P)
3/17/13
Marcus Barnett uh well! i put in a thirteen hour shift with no access to Facebook and come back to all this! jesus. firstly, as Charlie said, and which has now been buried under some serious vitriol, we invited a pretty rough equal of women speakers of some quality to the event, and in the midst of this we can confirm Esther Leslie to the panel. given the sensitivity of recent events in the SWP, Galloway and Assange (alongside my own political traditions organising feminist and riot grrrl gigs in Preston before I was interested in even the littlest book of Marx or whatever!) we had a pretty big lump in our throats picking and choosing - due to (again as Charlie pointed out) the fact that most of the women we asked either haven't sent us back definitive answers yet, or turned down the event due to prior commitments. we resolved to have all chairs to be women, which we thought would be temporarily a good step forward until we could ratify the situation and await for further responses. Charlotte Bence, given the absolute shitstorm you have just gone through personally in order to basically start a serious struggle for a woman not to be treated like an erratic and confused beast in a political party that purports to be revolutionary, socialist, and feminist, then it's absolutely no surprise that your comment sounded sharp, and thats more than fair enough. Naomi has also squarely said that she could see why her comment could be seen as flippant, and from this you could guess why some men and women could have assumed that it was confrontational and not particularly sparing in tone. i know that with you this isn't the case whatsoever. so, at least that is all clarified and agreed upon. so to completely re-emphasise - right from the start, we were looking for a serious and meaningful gender balance at the conference for all the totally obvious reason of 'it makes fucking sense'. forces and badluck beyond our control conspired against us, but despite both working pretty unfriendly hours we're still cracking on with it. since this debate begun someone else has already given her thumbs up for talking. the same goes for the question of multiculturalism and the centrality of class: we are still awaiting on responses back from people we had ideas for. we shall see, this is all still such a work in progress. sorry if any of this sounds pernickety or repetitive - i am exhausted and at work again in 9 hours, and just want to actually clarify all this so it's not munched up in some facebook argument, the likes of which thousands have no doubt been had over and over
3/17/13
before and are just as generally personalised and unproductive as the last.
BigTim Roberts thread's dead, baby. thread's dead.

Sam Fisher sorry, I know this isn't helping anything at all, but since I been away I can't believe a man has defined himself and his buddy (also) male as feminists in order to browbeat a woman. WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO!
Khinezar Tint You're right, Sam Fisher, that was an entirely unhelpful comment. I've been following this thread closely and I assumed Marcus' post would have been the end of it, but apparently not. Since you, among others, insist on referring to people by their gender/other phenotypical characteristics rather than referring to them as individuals, I finally decided that a comment by me, as a female non-white firstgeneration immigrant, would actually be helpful. I know Charlie and he's worked hard to have women well represented, and the lack of women was a real concern for him. This ridiculous 160+ comment thread argument has pulled the entire debate in the wrong direction. This kind of internal bickering won't help anyone.
Yesterday at 3:19pm Like
Ian Land Robert, Michael: Read Marcus's response. That's how you should respond to entirely sensible criticisms like Charlotte's.
Yesterday at 3:57pm Like 3
Michael Black Ian land, i finished with this convo at about comment 30, so dont name drop me to try an get me back in so u can shit stir. Go back and read my comments. If you are still confused about anything then feel free to private message me. Charlie and Marcus were quite clear they want this nonsense to end. Please be mature enough to respect their wishes.
Yesterday at 4:24pm via mobile Like
Charlie Winstanley please we don't need to go over this again, would be good if *everyone* could just cease it's not getting anywhere
Yesterday at 4:43pm Edited Like 4
Allie Cat If statistically members of a marginalised group are significantly more likely to reject an invitation than members of the respective privileged group, it's often because they're alienated in some way by the environment. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, I'm not ruling out the possibility of a coincidence, but based on what I read of this thread (admittedly only about the first dozen
3/17/13
comments) it doesn't sound like you've (the organisers) considered whether that might be the case. Also I'd like to add that if there is some structural problem that's causing female speakers to turn the offer down, assuming it's unintended that doesn't reflect on the character of the organisers at all. But they do have to acknowledge criticism and make some attempt to find the problem and rectify it.
Sam Fisher Sorry Khinezar, but politics isn't just a mates game. It's no good saying 'I know him personally, he tried his best'. To anybody who doesn't know the organisers this just isn't going to cut it, is it? (FWiW my last comment was the aimed at the preposterous backflips self-identified 'feminists' were going through in order to silence genuine concerns from women*). 'internal bickering' - if we can't sort this shit out amongst ourselves (whoever 'we' are. This is debatable, but in the broadest sense everyone in this discussion is part of 'the converted'), how the hell do we expect engage in wider society in order to change things? Lefty unity is really problematic when it is used to close down internal debate (does it have any other function?) N.B. I actually think Marcus' response is pretty good, if you look closely at my comments they are made toward others, *not* the the organisers. I'm sure they are wonderful people. * In the context of this discussion, I think it is fair to say that the women raising these concerns are selfidentifying women, it doesn't appear to be me applying this identity to them. Further, I don't think people speak from these positions (phenotypical differences) because they want to affirm them for the sake of affirming them. We live in a world where these differences affect our lives, despite our individuality (these phenotypical differences in themselves are meaningless in-themselves as you point out. They are given meaning in a political/social/cultural environment). They exist and constrain our actions in certain ways, oppress us and cause us harm. Obviously (hopefully) we want to do away with these constraining categories, but I don't think we can do this by just ignoring them. Elites have often used this to silence and put people down. It becomes 'oh you mentioning sexism/racism/etc. exacerbates sexism/racism' (not the context in which sexist/racist/etc. actions took place).
24/27
3/17/13
Sophie Taylor Holy SHIT, this thread makes me ashamed to call myself a leftist. Robert Jack, what the hell is wrong with you?
Rugg Tomcat Organizers: Well done for dealing with this issue in a sane and measured way, and immediately addressing the valid concerns. Charlotte and Niomi: Keep it up, never stop arguing, I support and agree with everything you say as do many others, go count your likes and know you are not alone. Robert Jack et al: you make me ashamed to be male, count your likes and go think about your life for a while. You are bringing the event into disrepute, not the women raising legitimate concerns. The original post was certainly strong but not rude, you saying it was is just a non-argument to allow you to continue beating women down. Cultural change was always going to be harder than institutional change, but this discussion proves that it is happening, take heart and fight on.
Michael Black Rugg, Rob has more 'likes' on this thread than you. Does that mean he wins the antisexist medal now or do they only hand those out at the end of the year?
20 hours ago via mobile Like 1
Michael Black Sorry charlie... I just couldnt resist that one

20 hours ago via mobile Like
Laurel Dean BINGO

20 hours ago via mobile Like 7
Sam Fisher
20 hours ago Like
Rugg Tomcat http://4.bp.blogspot.com/fl85mDcDfk0/TaG5ebBDtDI/AAAAAAAAMEE/Ea0Bz_-r4Q/s1600/trek%2Byourself.JPG

19 hours ago Like
Darren Hill I feel like I have had some psychotic experience after reading all that.
Darren Hill I agree with Charlotte, not in an I agree with Nick way.
Marcus Barnett "If statistically members of a marginalised group are significantly more likely to reject an invitation than members of the respective
3/17/13
privileged group, it's often because they're alienated in some way by the environment. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, I'm not ruling out the possibility of a coincidence, but based on what I read of this thread (admittedly only about the first dozen comments) it doesn't sound like you've (the organisers) considered whether that might be the case." Allie Cat, yr answers are to be found later down the comments page, amongst a lot of tense and repetitive argument. the bulk of knock-backs we got were due to the speakers being unable to attend or definitely contribute due to their work schedules, being academics or students about to do their exams/hand in their dissertations and soforth. i'm not so sure it's something as structural as it is with just plain bad luck. anyway, as i said, we plod on. keep yr ears to the ground i guess.
18 hours ago Like
Allie Cat That makes sense. I take it most of the speakers who accepted the invitations aren't students or academics?
Craig Parr charlotte should speak!

2 hours ago Like 5
Ariel Silvera Socialist dudebros, man. What the fuck?

2 hours ago Like 4
Donna Guthrie If some of the commentators on this thread are a measure of those involved in organising and attending this event, I for one would not be seen dead at it. Firstly, I am totally shocked at the hostile responses to requests for more woman representation. Women do not have to speak softly and polite, that's your sexist view. And secondly, black intellegent political people do exist actually and many organisations from London up to Manchester, where this is being held, could have been approached to join the panel on multiculturalism. Though, having listened to the racist ignorant comments on here, I doubt they would be welcome other than as second class names for your quota. Back to the real world maybe you should stop and have an actual conversation with a black person one day it might be quite enlightening.
Zoe Stavri I do wish I hadn't played the left sexism drinking game while reading this thread *staggers away from FB, vomits into gutter* Let's see what we had: -Faithful belief in the meritocracy fairy -Calling the tone cops
3/17/13
-Suggestion that feminism is a bourgeois concern -Rampant articulation that it's better to invite a male speaker who knows what they're talking about rather than an ignorant woman, as if this is the only possible binary. -Accusations of derailing by talking about gender in a thread about gender There's probably some more but I lost the will to live.
Marie Clare I find it staggering that a panel discussing multiculturalism in a left-wing conference would not have one black or Asian person. And agree with everything Charlotte and Naomi are saying. This stuff really should be ABC on the left by now and the blatantly sexist responses they faced are unbelievable. Whoever said women and people of colour speakers would be 'tokenism' because politics is overwhelmingly white and male, and 'we live in a country that is 90% white' etc has just turned my stomach and I can't believe these people consider themselves on the left in any way shape or form.
Marie Clare In fact there should be black and Asian speakers in every panel, but the one on multiculturalism should surely go without saying.
Michael Black From what i hear the lineup is a work in progress marie clare. If you wish to join a panel or put on a talk of your own, contact Charlie or Marcus and im sure they'd be delighted to arrange it
about an hour ago via mobile Like
-"Rosa sat so Martin could walk; Martin walked so Obama could run, Obama ran so your children can fly"
-"Rosa sat so Martin could walk; Martin walked so Obama could run, Obama ran so your children can fly"
27/27

Gmail - One Hell of A Debate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gmail - One Hell of A Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/17/13

Gmail - one hell of a debate

anoop kumar <anoopkheri@gmail.com>

one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Jack Pilgrim Where are you Charlie Winstanley?

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Huw Williams Oh dear............

Ian Black Hey Charlie Winstanley do we all get pms?

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Charlie Winstanley no great loss

Gmail - one hell of a debate

again, depressingly predictable.

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Robert Jack what does it say?

Gmail - one hell of a debate

BigTim Roberts love me some solidarity.

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Sam Fisher ^^^

Robert Jack So thats clearly a lie

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Wednesday at 11:39pm Like

Naomi Bee Yep, this is left sexism bingo right here.

BigTim Roberts http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=owrVQebWCtc

Ollie Sutherlandhttp://ideologicallyimpure.files. wordpress.com/2011/02/feminist.jpg

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Andy Lawson robert - y u no stop digging?

Naomi Bee Again: shut up women. Not surprising.

Alexander Carver Not at all Naomi.

Alexander Carver That's really shit you'd say that, what...

BigTim Roberts alex, i think she was referring to another comment.

BigTim Roberts at least... i hope so.

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Alexander Carver depends, is for a man or a cat?

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Alexander Carver Since when is living in Manchester a privilige?

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Yesterday at 2:43am Like

Gmail - one hell of a debate

BigTim Roberts thread's dead, baby. thread's dead.

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Michael Black Sorry charlie... I just couldnt resist that one

Laurel Dean BINGO

Rugg Tomcat http://4.bp.blogspot.com/fl85mDcDfk0/TaG5ebBDtDI/AAAAAAAAMEE/Ea0Bz_-r4Q/s1600/trek%2Byourself.JPG

Gmail - one hell of a debate

Craig Parr charlotte should speak!

Ariel Silvera Socialist dudebros, man. What the fuck?

Gmail - one hell of a debate

You might also like