Monthly Archives: November 2014

Get Real! A Woman’s Response to Michael Laxer’s accusation of “all men” for Jian Ghomeshi’s alleged actions

18 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Current Events

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Kiam Last week I read an article by Michael Laxer (former candidate and election organizer for the NDP, and a two time Socialist candidate for Toronto City Council) that is surprising on numerous levels. In the blog post, Laxer argues that “all men…collectively, and most commonly as individuals, are responsible for creating the conditions that not only facilitate Ghomeshi’s alleged abuse, but that ensure he will exist.” Not only is this a generalization, but as a Socialist, Laxer fails to give any broader analysis of the corporate and power conditions that create a culture of abuse against women. In a capitalist society, not “all men” possess equal power to create these conditions or any conditions at all. While the existing social conditions (of misogyny, objectification of women, etc) may have been created by rich and powerful male elites, most men are not in this privileged male group! The majority of men (and women) do not create the dominant culture, they simply react to, consume, or absorb it. While he touches on pornography and prostitution as culprits, he does so in such a way as to mainly blame the male consumers of debased and violent pornography rather than to also critically interrogate the producers and owners of the industry. It is these men, this small group of wealthy elites that produce and disseminate such images and attitudes of women as objects to be man- handled (often violently or degradingly).

I agree that much modern day mainstream pornography is degrading and offensive to women. But why is he blaming the consumers of pornography rather than the producers? While the pornography industry is owned and run by male elites, the key word is elites, meaning a handful of wealthy, profit-driven men. Three billion men do not produce pornography. Laxer is blaming the consumer while leaving the producers wholly unscathed. And pornography is not the only industry that exploits, debases, objectifies and sells female sexuality to men for profit. Almost every male-focused industry on the planet—from beer, to cars, sports, and even after-shave—use sex and sexualized images of women to market to men. If the adage that sex “sells” is true then clearly we are talking about, or should be talking about, consumerism, capitalism and corporate mediated culture. As a socialist, Laxer makes no attempt at capitalist or corporate critique, what so ever, which is surprising and disappointing. Instead he puts all the blame on the consumers of sexualized (or debased) female images and treatment. Of course the consumers of particular forms of pornography are complicit to a degree, but pornography producers are even guiltier than the consumers are. Pornography does not simply mirror consumer tastes and trends, it also creates them. And many male consumers of pornography do not like the trends and tastes that are currently being marketed to them, opting instead for “amateur pornography” because it is less brutal, less sensational and more realistic; meaning similar to the intercourse they engage in.

all men

We need to go to the source of the problem. And it is not all men, it is a particular class of men; the men with the power to produce/create and perpetuate a culture of violence or sexual exploitation of women in the first place. To wholly accuse all men of this crime is both extreme and offensive to me as a woman and a humanist and I can imagine to the majority of men who may have read his article. While a male culture of female exploitation and objectification does exist, not all men are equally guilty of creating, or even have the power to create, this culture. At the same time, some female elites also contribute to the reproduction and perpetuation of this culture. We must talk about power and class, something so-called progressives refuse to do in the west. In a capitalist or corporate hegemonic society, the majority of men and women lack any real power. All of the men Laxer cites in his article (Jian Ghomeshi, Bill Cosby, R Kelly, Woody Allen etc, ) are wealthy or famous men of power. So class must come into his discussion. These men are from an elite group  or class (i.e., the rich, famous and/or politically powerful) in society.

While it is sadly very true that economically and politically powerless men—i.e., working class, middle class or poor men—also beat, sexually assault and kill women in the west (and around the world), and exert their physical power or supremacy, it is also true that many men (maybe the majority of men) do not! So to write an article accusing “all men” of being rapists or indirectly complicit in sexual abuse simply for being men is ridiculous and insulting not only to men but also to women. These are our fathers, brothers, husbands, partners and sons! While sexual abuse and violence against women exists and is pervasive in many places, not every man is a rapist or violent and not every woman has suffered at the hands of men. I have often felt safe and protected in the presence of men or by their actions. There are noble protective men in this world who use their “masculinity” and physical strength to make others feel safe, not threatened! Surely, we cannot and must not lump these men in with rapists and abusers of women.

 

The “New Left” and the Limits of Identity Politics

18 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Politics, Society

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

identity-politics

Once upon a time, I considered myself a lefty. I was critical of the system, global economic power, and Western imperialism and imperial wars. I was also conscious and critical of socioeconomic and class issues. Overall, I was wary and critical of militarized global capitalism as an international system of power and exploitation that historically gives rise to a host of other issues and problems. To me, being “left-wing” implied some form of critique of the system and a desire to, on some level, transform or replace it [1].

Today, I have a far less clear notion of what it means to be left wing and I no longer employ the label. This is largely due to the left’s “transition” to identity politics, liberalism and hard-line political correctness.

The contemporary left or “new left” (or “fake left”, as many have come to see it) seems much more concerned, if not obsessed, with personal identity than economic and political, analysis and opposition. Everywhere I look, issues of gender, sexuality and (to a lesser extent) race seem to dominate the Left. Since the late 1960s and 1970s, the radical left, which had criticism of the system and class-consciousness as underlying characteristics, became increasingly concerned with an identity politics that is not amply couched in critical ideology or larger critical analyses of the global system of power. While identity issues may matter, being gay, a woman, transgender, or a racial minority does not, in and of itself, make one subversive or anti-systemic nor does it necessarily threaten the global system of power [2]. If anything, by diverting attention away from class and economic issues and struggles, identity politics may unwittingly reinforce the power of the system.

While sexually and racially marginalized people may deal with increased social bias, discrimination and or obstacles because of their “identity,” class and politico-economic power are the elephants in the room that the new left must not be afraid to address. Wealthy racial minorities or wealthy women, for instance, likely experience less bias and less social barriers than poor ones.  While they may differ from wealthy white males, they share something very important in common–their wealth and the social access and mobility it allows.  What this means is that, despite racial, gender and other differences, individuals have much in common–i.e., similar struggles or similar privileges based on wealth or lack there of–with people of a similar economic position. While identity politics divides people (into little camps and special interest groups), economic status and or economic plight (i.e., class) is the great “unifier” insofar as there is currently a global economic order or system that is collectively screwing the majority of the world’s people.

Seeking inclusion or wider representation within this system it is not necessarily an act of subversion or resistance. Belonging to a marginalized identity can be very subversive against social and religious norms but it is not, in and of itself, subversive against the politico-economic power structure. While many people are undeniably discriminated against based on race, gender and sexuality, an identity politics that is devoid of class-consciousness, class analysis and class struggle does not threaten or undermine the global system of power. As I previously stated, by shifting attention away from class and economic issues, identity politics may actually reinforce the power of the system.

In other words, identity politics does not directly threaten the system. One way to know what threatens the establishment is to examine what the establishment targets as an enemy. For instance, for my doctoral research, I examined what the Canadian state targets as enemy number one–that being terrorism–under its anti-terrorism laws. Strangely, why this legislation is suppose to be aimed at combating “terrorism,” what I found is that the laws seems to be targeting a very particular type of dissent. My in-depth, award-winning analysis of Canadian anti-terrorism shows that/how the laws are written in such a manner as to conflate anti-globalization or anti-capitalist/corporate dissent and protests with the very serious crime of terrorism. A major implication of these findings is the the Canadian state, much like other western states, is so threatened by dissent and resistance to global economic power that it legally considered it a form of terrorism.

By looking at the type of dissent or opposition the State targets and criminalizes we begin to get a picture of what type of is dissent is threatening to–and can therefore have an impact on–power. Nowhere in the hundreds of pages of legislation and official security documents that I examined did I see the words “women’s movement” or “gay/queer movement” or “black movement” movement or activism  explicitly mentioned as a threat to national security and conflated with  terrorism or terrorist violence.  This implies that identity-based types of dissent and political movements—i.e., identity politics—do not, on their own, threaten or undermine the western capitalist state and the global system of politico-economic power, of it which it is currently a component.

In other words, my research reveals what really threatens the power structure, and it ain’t identity politics! Thus, the research findings suggests that class and economic struggles or movements  (such as the anti-globalization or anti-capitalist movement), not identity-based ones, are the core issues at stake for confronting power and oppression and the ones that we should focus on more.  If the objective of the Left is (suppose to be) to challenge the oppressive power structure, then it may be useful to look at what types of dissent and resistance that power structure is actually afraid of—as my research does—and then embark on or focus on these forms of dissent and oppositional politics.

Notes

[1] At the same time, I was conscious and guilty of the contradictions of living, participating and working in a system I am critical of–I work to pay the bills, buy things and participate in consumerism, etc.

[3] I define subversion as criticism of or opposition to the politico-economic power structure and militarized global politico-economic power or simply, Empire.