Weekly Worker and their take on the Sheridan letter
I know, I know, I shouldn't rise to the bait but I re-read Peter Manson's piece in Weekly Worker (that paper is designed for the top shelf...) about the open letter from Tommy Sheridan. So, I have sent a letter in and here it is...
Dear Editor
While reading Peter Manson’s analysis of the problems concerning Tommy Sheridan’s open letter (Weekly Worker, 627) I was struck by a feeling of déjà vu or as Dolly Parton once sang, “here you go again”.
Sheridan has made remarks (unhelpful, in my opinion) regarding feminism and the strange notion that the SSP has become a “gender-obsessed discussion group”. This then gives comrade Manson licence to attack feminism as “petty bourgeois” and akin to “petty bourgeois nationalism”. Unfortunately, Manson lumps all forms of feminism together under the banner of “petty bourgeois” and then bizarrely compares it to petty bourgeois nationalism. For a start, nationalism and feminism are two entirely different social phenomena and how he made this ideological conflation is strange beyond belief.
I don’t know what the internal issues are in the SSP but the fact that Sheridan zooms in on gender makes me wonder why he has done that. Interestingly, he has attacked the 50-50 policy, which in my opinion has both positives and negatives. But in the short-term it is a way of getting women involved in the leadership. Therefore what do the CPGB and Sheridan proposes in getting women active in all structures of the organisation? And when comrade Manson argues that “we champion genuine equality for women” it just seems to be abstract window-dressing because anyone can say it and what does it mean exactly. How you gonna do it in practical terms, that’s what I want to know?
Dear Editor
While reading Peter Manson’s analysis of the problems concerning Tommy Sheridan’s open letter (Weekly Worker, 627) I was struck by a feeling of déjà vu or as Dolly Parton once sang, “here you go again”.
Sheridan has made remarks (unhelpful, in my opinion) regarding feminism and the strange notion that the SSP has become a “gender-obsessed discussion group”. This then gives comrade Manson licence to attack feminism as “petty bourgeois” and akin to “petty bourgeois nationalism”. Unfortunately, Manson lumps all forms of feminism together under the banner of “petty bourgeois” and then bizarrely compares it to petty bourgeois nationalism. For a start, nationalism and feminism are two entirely different social phenomena and how he made this ideological conflation is strange beyond belief.
I don’t know what the internal issues are in the SSP but the fact that Sheridan zooms in on gender makes me wonder why he has done that. Interestingly, he has attacked the 50-50 policy, which in my opinion has both positives and negatives. But in the short-term it is a way of getting women involved in the leadership. Therefore what do the CPGB and Sheridan proposes in getting women active in all structures of the organisation? And when comrade Manson argues that “we champion genuine equality for women” it just seems to be abstract window-dressing because anyone can say it and what does it mean exactly. How you gonna do it in practical terms, that’s what I want to know?
posted by Louisefeminista at 3:50 pm
|
