Venezuelan strike beginning to fail

JBrown72073 at cs.com JBrown72073 at cs.com
Tue Dec 31 18:48:52 PST 2002


David Schanoes writes:
>The issues are: 1. this person's conflict is in no way equivalent to Rosa
Park's. 2. to link it with that struggle is to obscure the real social dynamics at work in both cases. 3. No, there should be no support for any subjugation of women. 4. This woman is an officer, not an enlisted person. When you turn the guns around, you turn them on the officers.

The U.S. armed forces inhospitability to women is not limited to female officers, though it may be curbed by the struggle of such, as it has been in the past. Are you saying enlisted women are not affected by the clothing strictures? I thought we were supposed to think of things in class terms, the effect on the group, not just the individual.


>5. Is the solution to advocate that the USAF stand fast on the rights of
female officers to wear pants and skirts in Riyadh? Of course not. Instead, anyone on the "left," should insist on the immediate withdrawal of all US military forces and materiel from all other countries. I personally oppose the quartering of the US military anywhere on the globe, including the soil of the US. 6. This officer's problem with her own bosses is at best another glimpse into capital's desire, need, to link itself with the most reactionary, backward, formations in order to maintain its power.

OK, that's what I figured the objection was, just checking.


>If the issue were explained in that way then a service instead of a
disservice would have been done to the struggle of those like Rosa Parks, who were just too damn tired to take any crap any more.

Of course, Parks was an NAACP leader for many years--they'd taken a case for another person, a teenager who'd refused to move to the back of the bus and was arrested, but she got pregnant (a little sexist history for ya). So both things are true, Rosa Parks was tired, AND strategic. The myth of Rosa Parks discounts the role of organization while the history of Rosa Parks and the Montgomery movement is much more fascinating. There's some interesting class history there, too, where they essentially picked King as the more acceptable (middle class) leader.

I think Counterpunch comparing this USAF officer to Rosa Parks is actually plain old sexism, the thing couldn't stand on its merits, since women's rights aren't, well, you know, that important, so it had to be compared to something that WAS really important, like Civil Rights. They could have compared her to a suffragist.


>I'm not trying to be sarcastic believe it or not, but are we forgetting that
>African Americans are only about 15% of the population?

Yeah and probably the most progressive ethnic group (as more Jews are going Repub these days)--anyway it's white folk that need to get their shit together. Btw, public sector workforces and therefore unions are in many cases very integrated--a whole part of the 'left' that's quite 'integrated.'

Todd Archer writes:
>So brainlessly pissing off possible friends and allies by lecturing at them

is the same as pissing off the bourgeoise by speaking truth to them? Beware

of your Platonism.

I thought we were supposed to speak truth to our comrades and lie to our enemies. Unless we're Quakers.

Jenny Brown



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list