Off to Marxism 2011

I'm on my way to Marxism 2011, where I will be harassed by the SWP and will sleep on the floor with no access to shower or internet.

If you happen to go, come and say HI. I'll be the one wearing glasses and an exhausted look.

I can only hope that I'll come back with more than "I could have given the bloody talks, I know more than them!". If that be the case, and I can be arsed, I'll write about the experience.

The Problem With "Live And Let Live" - More on Moran

During the Newsnight debate, Caitlin Moran revealed to Paxman and the audience her life motto of "live and let live" (adding after that "when my head hits the table, please order me a taxi". Presumably because it sounds transgressive and "edgy".)

Moran’s bubbly, perky and boisterous cry of “live and let live” fits the neoliberal agenda to a T. By doing nothing on a social level, by “allowing anything to happen” we are literally leaving the doors wide open for corporations to do what they want. It’s not a far cry from “deregulation”. And we know how well that went with the banks.

Think about the actual meaning of “live and let live”. What it doesn’t say, but is implied, is this:

A) we will allow everyone to do what they want, we won’t stop anyone from doing what they want. Translation: we will allow businesses to sell whatever they want, and if people want to buy, that’s their choice. (And if the product is bad for them, it's their own fault for buying)

B) we assume that “doing” stuff is good. Translation: buying trumps not buying. We will allow the selling of everything.

C) we can’t say that anything is “bad”, and therefore we can’t stop people from doing what they want. Translation: we can’t judge anything as morally "wrong", but we can nevertheless say that stopping a business is not allowed, while allowing a business to exist is.

What this type of ideology never addresses is this: why is it that “live and let live” always translates into more businesses opening rather than less? Wait, that’s not a good way of putting it. Here’s another: why is it that “live and let live” comes to mean “stuff will be produced and sold” and it never means “stuff will not be produced or sold”?

For a clear-cut example, why is it that nobody ever, like, EVER, brings up this argument to use it against the arms trade? Nobody ever says “look, I believe in live and let live, so stop making weapons”. AHA! How about “I believe in live and let live, and since cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, it would be a great improvement on letting other people live if we all gave up cars”. Instead, the argument, which is never applied to this case by the way, takes the form “look, let people have cars, live and let live”.

Do you see it now? Even when the “letting people do whatever they want” actually gets in the way of people living, the argument “live and let live” is still applicable. Why? Because it’s not the innocent request for “everyone to get along” or "respect other people's choices" . It’s actually the nasty propagandistic shtick used to silence dissidents by painting them as “intolerant”. What they really mean is “let people do whatever they want” and under they breath they add “because there is no such thing as society”. Your actions should never get in the way of another person’s actions. Because, it is assumed, that the actions of another will never affect you or anyone else. 

And that, my friends, is at the very core of every exploitative economic system. So long as the actions of another never affect you, the ruling classes can get away with doing anything to anyone. And that’s important to remember: while we argue over whether something is “good” or “bad”, whether it has “negative” or “no” consequences, while we get into discussions and end up, out of sheer frustration, “agreeing to disagree” and stating that “there is no way to know”, corporations get busy with ruling the planet, opening new shops and malls, and before you know it you can’t get together outside of the city library because it belongs to John Lewis. Yes, you read that right. We, the public, argue over which member of the public should decide for all of us. And while we argue, what is left of the public space gets appropriated by corporations. We can stop arguing then, surely. There’s no point anymore: we no longer control our lives.

WHOOPS! It seems like somebody decided what was “good” while we were busy arguing over whether it should be done or not.

I leave you with a really cool post I found accidentally while searching for Moran and "live and let live" titled "When the personal becomes apolitical", by Frances Grahl at shareorshelve. Sometimes the internet works. 

Sexualisation and Feminism in Newsnight

There are probably worse things than Newsnight featuring a discussion on Feminism. Nevertheless, that is exactly what happened on Monday.

The program is worth very little, though I’d strongly recommend it to any feminist with low blood pressure. Those with high blood pressure and/or any cardiac condition may want to stay away.

The programme asked “if we are living in an over sexualised society, and if so whether that is necessarily a problem”. And in traditional journalistic fashion, it failed spectacularly to answer that or anything else. 

For some reason that escapes my non-publicly-educated brain, the “discussion” was preceded by an exploration of Brazilians and vajazzling. Then, the programme moved on to Jeremy Paxman introducing the guests: Caitlin Moran, Brooke Magnanti and Kat Banyard.

The “debate”, if you can call it that, turned out looking rather pathetic. Especially because it was aired precisely after a report on the Syrian revolution. Anything any feminist could have said would have looked pale by comparison, and the fact that the programme switched from “Syrian revolution” to “vajazzling” didn’t help either. By the time the “debate” ended, with Moran clapping and asking for “clown pr0n” and Magnanti claiming that there is “clown pr0n” already, I bet every person watching the programme must have thought “and THAT is why nobody cares about feminism any more”.

As for what was actually debated…

Like I said, the political positions of each woman can be summarized thus:

**Magnanti comes from a pro-sex industry framework. She argued against most of what Banyard was saying. Her ideas about the subject at hand were, “everything is so peachy”. I’m paraphrasing, but not by much.

**Moran comes from the individualistic “whatever rocks your vote” framework, with a touch of cleverly disguised “enlightenment”. Her idea seems to be to let people do whatever they want to do, but gently tap on their shoulders as they are about to do it and ask “are you sure you want to do this? Because pr0n is very boring sex, you know”.That said, she doesn't seem to believe in feminism much. When Paxman asked her "where does this leave feminism in a sexualised society?" she shrugged.

**It was left to Banyard to make any case against anything. She is clearly departing from the old school line of thinking that says that social problems must be solved at social level, because there is such a thing as society and the actions of some have consequences on the lives of others.

This line of thinking is not very popular nowadays. Banyard brought up words like “objectification” and described pr0n as a relentless and hurtful. At one point, Magnanti asked her to produce “evidence”. Typical.

What I want to highlight is how unfair it is to present Magnanti’s position alongside Branyard. Here’s why: Magnanti is where she is, arguing for what she argues, because it translates into personal gain. Her popularity comes straight from her advocacy of the sex industry, from presenting prostitution as a wonderful career choice. The better public perception of the sex industry gets, the more money will make its way to her pocket.

Now compare that to Branyard’s position. Pr0n could be banned tomorrow, the whole of the sex industry going in a puff of smoke… and she would not gain anything from it. Perhaps the odd interview here and there. But that’s it.

Do you smell a fault? To put it crudely, Magnanti is in it for the money, Branyard is in it for… the social justice. The first is working to improve her lot, the second is fighting to improve the lot for all of us.

THESE TWO POSITIONS ARE NOT EQUAL. Especially when you take into account the downside of being a feminist activist: the loss of opportunities with publishers and editors, the constant onslaught of threats and venom, little things like that.

To put it even more crudely, Magnanti is ok with throwing some women under the bus if it translates into personal gain. Banyard is trying to improve circumstances for all women even if it translates into a personal cost.

Jeremy Paxman may not see the difference, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. I am tired of seeing Magnanti’s words within feminist discourse. Yes, her personal experience matters. But it only matters as “a” personal experience. And her personal experience cannot outweigh the personal experience of another woman. The only reason why it does, is because Magnanti is saying exactly what everyone wants to hear. And there is money to be made out of that. 

As for the program's main questions... "if we are living in an over sexualised society, and if so whether that is necessarily a problem". The answers are:

YES, we are undoubtedly living in a over sexualised society. And it is a problem, because of:

a) the relentless presentation of women as sexual objects. That affects all women, mind, not just those who "choose" to take their clothes off.

b) the commodification of human sexuality, which carries all the problems of commodification of anything human. In short, individual corporations profit from something that belongs to humans, and they get to redefine it as well, which is wrong.

c) the disintegration of the "real" thing called sex, which is accompanied with the increase in sexual violence, promiscuity, decrease in empathy and human connection.

d) the grooming of children to embrace the sex industry, so that they'll be more receptive to it when they grow up.

And that's just off the top of my head. See? It's not that difficult when you believe in social justice and your interest lies in making society better.