Hola a todos. Awhile back I remember reading an interview with singer, Helen Reddy, wherein she said, “We’ve lost a lot” or something very close to that. By the way, Helen is still singing these days (she came out of retirement), although not exactly the same repertoire she became known for. With some of her older repertoire, she’s doing medleys of them instead. Her voice pretty much sounds the same. And she had cataract surgery awhile back. She spoke about how we’ve lost a lot in the feminist sense since the days of when she was singing, “I Am Woman.” Yes I would say that’s true. For example, much of the language changes that progressive-thinking people had accomplished over the decades have since regressed backwards from what I’m seeing and hearing. What I’m talking about is what has become known as “politically correct language.” Oh, I can hear the screams now, and feel the hate coming at me since there is this rabid hate for politically-correct language these days from all sides. This venom started from the far-right and some fake-progressives/fake-liberals have also fallen in line lockstep with them to oppose PC language. I still use what’s known as “politically-correct language” — although I usually refer to it as gender neutral language — and will continue to do so because to me it’s just intelligent language in that it is non-gender specific.
Some people never grasped the feminist concept to begin with, or outright rejected it. The one website that comes to mind where one can predict and expect a glaring lack of feminist thinking is the Socialist Equality Party’s (SEP’s/ICFI’s) website. They are quite the piece of work in that regard. The reader may be saying, “Oh you’re not going to write about them again, are you?” No more than I have to, to make my point. Our little group of San Francisco Queers met the other night and my recent article about the SEP came up. Mi amigo/My friend had been back on their site (oh you poor thing!) and told me that the SEP’s sexism had risen again. Oh? We’re not surprised, are we? But let me back up a bit. For those who know nothing about these people. The SEP is this small group (with the big heads) of pseudo-socialists who live with delusions of grandeur that:
1) the problems in our society are because of class (one’s class)
2) a revolution by the “working class” is imminent,
3) capitalism is on the verge of collapse in the US, and
4) they (the SEP) are going to change the status-quo.
They live with these enormously enlarged egos that they are such a major political force to be dealt with (ha!), when in reality most people have never even heard of them, and at s-election time their candidates are rarely on anyone’s ballot and they get so few votes that their own website never publishes or makes mention of how many votes their candidates did receive. I suspect embarrassingly few.
As usual, one of their male writers recently wrote in non-feminist style about the US congress using the language, “congressmen and senators.” As I’ve pointed out many times before, this is sloppy language, and not what one would expect from a credible writer/journalist. What that writer should have written is: representatives (not “congressmen“) and senators, and that’s because senators are
congressmen congresspersons. Everyone in the Congress — both the House and Senate — is a congressmen congressperson, regardless of which body they’re in. The US congress consists of two bodies: the House (Representatives) and Senate (Senators). And I’m sure the many women in the US congress thoroughly appreciate being referred to as men, as in “congressmen.” Their congressional staff refer to them as “the congresswoman” or “Representative (name)” or “Senator (name).”
Mi amigo wanted to address the SEP’s sexism in this regard by writing a comment to them but he knows full well (as do I) that he would be immediately attacked for his comment because one is not allowed to be critical of the SEP’s writers without the SEP cultist commenters attacking the person being critical of their god writers. There’s this cult-like following among the devout/regular commenters on their site that their writers are seen as above-reproach and sacrosanct, or that’s the strong impression one gets. The only appropriate comment one can write (and have successfully posted) to one of their writers is, “You’ve hit the nail on the head once again (name of writer).” In fact, mi amigo told me he saw two instances of just that comment — “You’ve hit the nail on the head once again” — in the comments below that article. And incredibly, the females on the site are the first to defend any sexism, chauvinism and misogyny. Yes, that’s exactly what I had noticed when I was on that site. Mi amigo told me that a local Bay Area congresswoman was referred to by two commenters as “the congressman.”
As I told mi amigo, he’s wasting his time trying to fight this. They’re not going to change at this point and their cultists will rally to their defence every time. They always do. They are good little boot lickers. Just like these pseudo-socialist hypocrites are not about to change their addiction to billionaire-owned “social media” sites while out of the other side of their mouth they pretend to, claim to oppose the billionaire class. With tech, they make an exception in this instance, so as not to disturb their own comfort level.
Having been on that site in the past myself and when people mentioned something about themselves including their age, I think/suspect most of them are of the age group where they grew up at a time where sexism, chauvinism and misogyny were quite acceptable and the norm. And they’re not about to change. It’s too late for them to change, which is not necessarily the case with all seniors or older people, but I think with this group it is. Therefore, they have no intention of changing no matter how many times someone shoves their sexism, chauvinism and misogyny in their faces. They will rabidly defend their backward, outdated and puritanical thinking. Some of them seem to be stuck in a time period where “women should be barefoot and pregnant.” I remember when I was on there, I wrote in a comment (that they did post, surprisingly) that I wasn’t aware that sexism, chauvinism and misogyny were requirements for being a socialist. No one disputed that, including the women on the site. And with their backwards attitude, I think it’s quite clear why they don’t (or very rarely) write about any Queer issues such as the persecution of Queers in other countries, such as Russia. But that would be considered “identity politics” which they oppose. They see identity politics as, “a divisive, opportunist, upper-middle class conception used to advance ones career.” (roll eyes). Mi amigo and I get the distinct impression that everyone on that site — writers and commenters — is a breeder/straight and/or a gay closet case. No one has ever mentioned that they are Queer or GTQBL. Mi amigo complained to them recently about part of one of their articles which was written from a place of straight privilege. That’s the way it came off to him. He was flamed for saying that, with their cultist commenters piling on defending their messiah writer.
Helen Reddy is correct when she says we’ve lost a lot as a people in the feminist sense, (and I’ll add) in other ways too. I look at the Millennial Clone breeder couples in San Francisco — in their head-to-toe all-black conformist clothing/uniform — and I observe their very sexist, chauvinistic and misogynistic breeder behaviour as they walk around The Castro and Upper Market in the required hand-in-hand or arm-in-arm mode. By their exhibitionistic behaviour, they make it obvious that they don’t see themselves as equal partners but rather the tall guy is dominant over the submissive “little girl” short female. Rarely can they be the same height. If one didn’t know any better, watching these breeder couples one would guess they were back in the 1940s-50s. A 90-year old acquaintance of mine has noticed this extreme height difference/requirement with Millennial Clone breeder couples. “What’s up with that?” she asked me recently. She brought it up one day asking whether I had noticed it and asking the reason for it because she said it looks so odd to her. I said: Oh yes, I’ve noticed it. As I told her: The guy looks like he’s with his little-child daughter and making out with her (leaning way down and over to get to her lips), rather than making out with his girlfriend or esposa/spouse, which one would think would be closer to his height, no? My 90-year old acquaintance told me that, “back in my day all the couples I knew were roughly the same height.” My parents were about the same height.
SEP: Blame the Victim
You may be aware of what’s currently going on with an actor (initials KS) who recently came out of the closet at the same time he was accused of sexual advances allegedly taking place some thirty years ago when the accuser was 14 years old and KS was 26 years old. Other people have since come forward with similar allegations, including the “he’s a sexual predator” allegation from another actor’s son.
According to mi amigo, the SEP wrote an article about this wherein they attacked the victim who had come forward, and they spent six paragraphs gushing over KS’s career, when in a legal sense, what KS has accomplished as an actor is moot, completely irrelevant to the allegations. But I found it interesting to hear that the SEP had attacked the victim and rushed to the defence of the actor. Because as memory serves, that’s what they usually do. They attack the victim, seemingly never wanting to believe the victim’s allegations. According to them, the victim (it’s usually a female except in the case of KS) has an agenda involving other motives. The SEP typically calls this a “witch hunt” against the accuser as they have done in the case of KS. Looking back through their archives a bit, I found other stories of (alleged) sexual assault where the SEP writer was also attacking the victim. Except in the case of this Queer actor, it seems to me that this “attack the victim” mentality/approach — and again, where the victim is usually a female in other instances — goes hand-in-glove with their outdated sexist, chauvinistic and misogynistic thinking. And if it were not for that, I probably wouldn’t even be writing about this.
As I was completing this article, I went over to their site. Surprisingly, two commenters were able to have their comments successfully posted on their site. I’ve slightly re-worded both comments for copyright purposes without changing their message, so neither are exact quotes:
This so-called “socialist” site appears to be an all-male brocialist circle-jerk defending a powerful male actor who’s facing sexual assault allegations. How socialist of you. The fact of this being a mostly male group on this site with some reprehensibly misogynistic perspectives on this matter disqualifies you all as socialists. Maybe you all call yourselves a socialist, but your attitudes here betray your reactionary political inclinations. Socialism is radically feminist by definition. You can’t talk about a classless society based on equality when your own words and actions defend patriarchy. I dare any of you to go to an actual socialist organization and say the stuff you’re saying, without some consequences, and rightfully so.
I see I’m not the only person who thinks that.
Then this excerpt from a comment from another person:
As he so often does, this writer asserts his freedom from bourgeois prejudice by siding with the serial sexual predator. He did exactly the same thing with Roman Polanski, excusing his anally sodomizing a 13-year old girl who was pimped to him by her mother on the grounds that Polanski had survived the Holocaust and was a great artist. Perhaps it never occurred to this writer that even some cinematically gifted pedophiles get caught in the gears of the Nazi War machine and that Polanski was one of them. The fact that Polanski went on to say in his autobiography that all of us real men want to pound those “young colts” did not awaken this writer…
Chau.—el barrio rosa
“How F***B**k’s tentacles reach further than you think: Vladan Joler says that all FB users are effectively working on behalf of the company; If FB were a country, it would be bigger than China” says Mr Joler, whose day job is as a professor at Serbia’s Novi Sad University.”