I think you are completely missing the point Jed. It feels like we are on two different ships yelling at each other as we pass in the night fog.
Let me ask you a simple question.
When you meet someone for the first time, perhaps you’re introduced to them, you exchange the norms of common curtesy and then you start having a chat, you want to get to know them. Are you blind to their skin colour, their ethnicity, their gender and, if it is made known to you, their sexual orientation? In short, do you treat everyone absolutely equally regardless of their facticity (or at least endeavour to)?
I’m not sure how personal social contexts are really relevant here.
But no, I don’t care about skin colour or ethnicity, and gender, sexuality only matter in the context of dating possibilities. Why would I care otherwise? It’s far more interesting to discuss ideas, thoughts, places, things to do for fun, things to do because they’d be good to accomplish, etc.
It’s probably hard for you to really hear what I’m saying from your current perspective, but I’ll try a few more angles anyway.
There should be no competition. This is not a power game. If we fight it like it is, everyone loses.
“The patriarchy” is an imaginary construct designed to divide men and women, who’s natural inclination is to live symbiotically together, like their lives depend on it, which they do.
The very existence of this concept has done nothing but harm. Of course men and women should have equal opportunities. The progress towards that over the last century or so has mostly been a result of economic and social stability combined with health and technological improvement and gross increases in average wealth, largely due to capitalism, allowing us to expand out of our niche roles, like women no longer need to average 6.5 kids just to keep the population from going backwards in the face of 1900’s 40-50% infant mortality, and men no longer need to die at horrendous levels of all causes, as they deal with disease, injury, crime and war ridden world to provide a safe place for families.
Shitting on this history of struggle and re-spinning it as some battle of the sexes is beyond silly.
And “white privilege”? This guy knew what he was on about…
I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King.
That’s the goal, so aim for it. Don’t define peoples lives by the colour of their skin.
Some white people have really shitty lives, and the very idea that they have “white privilege” is like a massive slap in the face to them as they struggle to get by.
Some white people are successful, and according to the doctrine of white privilege, they’re supposed to feel guilty after decades of hard work and risk taking to get where they are.
Some black people have excellent lives, full of accomplishments and success. Are we going to shit on that by suggesting that it was only because of affirmative action?
Some black people have shitty lives, and according to this doctrine, they’re supposed to feel like victims. Who the hell wants to be defined as a victim? That sucks.
Basically, nobody comes out unscathed.
I say “No.” All of this is wrong.
Intersectionality almost got this right. They just didn’t go far enough. If you just look at the intersection of every damned thing in peoples lives that make them succeed or fail, all the way down to the individual, then you got it right.
Look at the individual.
Have an open heart.
Decide to play fairly.
Be seen to play fairly.
Be transparent.
Speak out freely.
Be a Pirate.
To be fair, patriarchy definitely existed in western countries. It was just dismantled in the… 1960s? 1970s? I’d have to go look up the legislation dates for various countries for things like equal pay and whatnot. It still exists in places like Saudi Arabia.
I don’t buy that explanation of history.
We were transitioning from a world where just to stop the population from falling backwards, women had to have so many damned children and raise them without the automation and conveniences of the modern world. Women in the work force was a thing that happened before they settled down and had families.They didn’t typically get the same opportunities as men because nobody, least of all them, expected them to stick around and see that into a career. The entire species depended on that, right up until modern medicine, technology, production line manufacturing, birth control, sanitation, electricity everywhere, cheap transport, etc etc etc.
Then we change the rules to fit the new circumstances, and people reinvent the past.
I’m not trying to debate or suggest reasons why things were the way they were. Just pointing out that in the past, women were paid less than men for the same work, women didn’t have the right to vote, etc, and that fits the dictionary definition of patriarchy.
Yeah, look, there’s more to this than dictionary definitions.
I’m not a young guy, and I talked at length about the history of this with my grand mother before she died, who raised children herself in the very early 1900’s. The lives of men and women were in different spheres. Women were proud of their role. They created and nurtured life, and they were respected for it. Men dealt with scary shit in the outside world. They did it to support women and families, and they were respected for that too. When it came down to it, they frequently put their lives on the line. That was life.
My grandfather on my mothers side (in Britain) was conscripted into WW1. He had no choice in this, and he did not have the vote (since he didn’t own land). He came back shell shocked (read PTSD), and spend most of the rest of his life in institutions, but got granted the right to vote because the politicians feared that all the returned service men would stage a revolt if not granted suffrage. They granted it to women at the same time for under 30’s, and 10 years later to all women over 21. The reason being that so many millions of men had died for the country, that to have granted it to all women instantly would have created too radical a shift.
Somehow, you don’t hear history told quite like this anymore.
@PLB Essentially, this is why I wanted to interfere in the fight between your ships. I think you both did shotsfired for nothing, and in the end realize the fact that neither side is discriminating, lol.
I think you have different visions on implementing / enforcing the total destruction of discrimination, in the end
Personally I don’t really know what solution would be best in each country / population / nation, really.
But let’s be Pirates, hence pragmatic, and see to the best solutions in removing discrimination from public life.
I myself, as a eastern european peep, am the best target for xenophobia in the UK. It’s like I have a target on my head every-time I get my ass off of Luton, LoL. But I keep contact with some friends from the UK and help them out from time to time with my personal ideas and presentations. Maybe some day that target on my head will disappear, who knows.
Same must be done in each and any other case with discrimination / xenophobia, and other stupid divisive policies
One thing though, as I observed through time: constant socializing with people from other sex, gender, nation, race, and other types of differences, can help a hell lot in shaping one’s opinion of opposite differences
Heck, if I would see a real elf ( yeah, those elves from fantasy stories! ) walking the street I would definitely say a ‘whoaw! hello and welcome to our world!’. I would want to say that without being called names, though.
Diversity is extremely interesting, but it should not be a divisive point
I don’t want to engage with the detail of your argument, but do recognise that in broad terms, we see the things that most offend us as also of great significance. Now, their significance - compared to all the other things going on - is a matter for separate analysis. It would be good if we could put all the things in list and then try to estimate their relative and absolute magnitude by objective means, but a pretty hard thing to do in reality.
A metaphor I’d try to put forward - and a little bit historical, if a little politically loaded - recall the number of people who were so upset before Howard won his last term. As though it were the end of the world. Now, I sure did not want Howard to win his last term. But I did not see it as the most important thing then, or of all time.
Imagine going back to somebody living through the Cuban missile crisis. People were wondering if the world would - effectively - end. Or the London Blitz. With V1s and V2s coming in over the horizon. And telling them that early next century, it will be really important whether or not Howard gets into Government in Australia …
Anyway, perhaps you see what I mean. There may be things to be validly concerned about here. I don’t deny that. Still, I’m concerned about their significance being emotively overstated.
I’m sure, at least i’m mostly sure, that we all want the same thing. That is, a world that has less structured racism, more gender equality and the deconstruction of ingrained privilege, be it based on skin colour or economic clout or whatever unfairness exists.
My perspective on how best to achieve this is, is based on my epistemological and ontological understanding of the world and the facts around me in relation to the relative dominance of white males in positions of political and economic power. I do not think this is condition is suitable any more and i think it would be to all of our benefits if it was broken down and diversified. I hope, we find agreement on that point?
How best to do that is clearly a point of contention on board this ship but that’s ok, i can accept that, i most certainly could be wrong and even if i’m not, a multi pronged approach is probably a good thing. I’m very grateful this thread has generated this discussion, actually, it’s helped me realise a few things and refine some ideas, so cheers. Let’s remember, we are all on the same side, i think.
Btw…out of interest, of the Pirate Party office holders, committee participants, policy development regulars and consistent volunteers, what percentage are women?
LoL, damn good question! In the PP-AU I don’t really know, but the first Europarliament member was Amelia Andersdotter. She was the first European Parliament revolutionary member that brought digital progressive and social progressive agenda on the tables.
She was the one that shaped the actual european pirates, and effectively interacted with all the leaders of Europe Pirate Parties, while backing-up the Pirate Party Internationale members ( which I think they were her friends and ex-members of The Pirate Bay and/or Anonymous idea )
Other than that, there’s Julia Reda which is the ‘peak of the spear’ of European Pirates in the European Parliament. She’s also member of LGBT+ Intergroup. She’s the one that sounded the alarm on the recent Copyright in the Digital Single Market lobby agenda, and we’re all behind her on this.
Mostly these two have been leading the Pirates agenda in the last 8 years. Hope Julia will resist another mandate
Oh damn. Editting: I forgot the Iceland pirates which are effectively one of the most progressive pirate groups abroad! I know Dora Bjort Gudjonsdottir of the Iceland pirates which is also part of the leading members.
Actually, Icelandic pirates were lead by mostly women as far as I remember, when there was the fight against the conservatives.
From my perspective, diversity is good, but I probably care a lot more about diversity of experience, diversity of thinking, diversity of knowledge, perspective, creativity, openness, community connection etc, than I care about your melanin levels or chromosome combination.
If you want to increase diversity by equalising opportunity, by encouraging participation, by reaching out with a wider net, by supporting the free speech of diverse interests etc, then I’m totally with you.
If you want to impose quotas, and generally enforce some concept of equal outcomes based on arbitrary characteristics, then I’m totally not with you.
Power and influence in volunteer organizations like PPAU accrues to the people that turn up and do the work.
A disproportionate number of people with Y chromosomes and limited evolutionary adaption to UV light turned up to do the work. It’s OK, they have comfortable chairs and shade.
Having said that, every woman that ever ran for a position in the party has been elected, and none have ever been turned away from a volunteer position to my knowledge.
If you want to participate, I encourage you to go for it. Just do it.
We need people working on Policy.
There was discussion about having a role of Equity Officer earlier this year, but nobody volunteered to be that. You survived this conversation, so you probably qualify.
I actually went back and checked this, and Mel and Frew both ran for the presidency (two contenders) and Deputy (about six contenders) in 2013; Frew won primary and IIRC Mel Deputy. So that one’s debatable.
Ha! Yeah, thanks. Except i’m a straight white male. As you say Andrew,
…is important, however i’m of the view that it is logically impossible to achieve this without diversity of actual lived experience. The core of our differences, i suspect.
You’re dressing it up in flowery language, but what you seem to be saying, essentially, is that even though race and gender shouldn’t matter you want to discriminate against white males because you think specific outcomes of percentage of race and gender in a group actually do matter. That’s… highly questionable.
That is generally the purpose of debate, so everything is working as intended there.
No Jedb, what i am saying is that lived experience is impacted by biology. Without biological diversity you cannot perceive certain injustices and inequities and you constrain your horizons of possibilities (policies) because of the homogeneity of perspective.
Don’t let that hold you back. The main criteria is actually caring about it, which you obviously do. If someone you think is more qualified comes along, just hand over the reigns.
“cannot perceive certain injustices and inequities” - that’s a bit of a stretch.
We’re a social species. We have so called “mirror neurons” that model the emotional state of others. We feel their pain by reflected simulation in our own perception, and we build mental models to understand aspects of the world that we don’t experience directly. Our entire education system and the structure of most of our institutions are based on this premise.
I have lived with a mother, a sister, a wife, a daughter, assorted female flat mates and girlfriends over the years.
It’s practically impossible to not notice their perspective. They insist on sharing it.
I just wish I knew how they do the thing where two mom’s meet up on a street corner for five minutes, then come away apparently knowing each others entire families life histories. It’s like they have a hidden download function.
