[Pga_europe_process] Re: [Breakingthesilence] mobility

paki.tv at cyber-rights.net paki.tv at cyber-rights.net
Mon Jul 5 08:38:29 CEST 2004

Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:44:32 -0700 ni co lu <nicolu at chutelibre.org> wrote:
>just to make it clear (loosing time once again with w.essex crazy
>rumours and agressions and trying to keep it cool anyway),

In what way is it keeping it cool to continue to suggest that people
you disagree with are "crazy" or "paranoid". While you may see confronting
your racism as agressive, you seem concerned to supress discussion of
gender and race, rather than co-ordinate a discussion in an even and
balanced fashion.

Your proposal of using men only groups to discuss sexist stereotypes
which project such attributes as irrationality onto women and rationality
onto men clearly runs into problems as racist stereotypes project irrationality
onto non-Europeans and rationality onto Europeans.

You propsal suggests some sort of uniformity in men's experience of gender,
 when clearly race creates clear differences which you choose to ignore
by creating a normative stereotype of white male experience.
This is racist, but you have chosen to dismiss challenges to this.

>the block against both women-only space and men-only workshops and >meetings
was taken off during belgarde's april meeting (you can just >have a look
at the april meeting minutes on the website). So there's >no block anymore
(except on west.essex emails, but they didn't even >talked about it at
the preparatory meeting in london.

The April minutes were not agreed or discussed at the London preparatory
meeting. The Block was taken off women only meetings.

At the London meeting gender was taken off the agenda and you failed
to turn up at the Monday session. You claim to be convening the gender
discussion, and said these issues would be discussed at London.

Originally we thought this was because you had dropped the idea of men-
only meeting as requested. It subsequently turned out that you were evading
the issue.

You then refused to include a response to your piece in the  reader,
suggesting that we start some so-called "self-imposed ghetto" for non-
european people. This is unacceptable.

>I really feel stupid to have to answer this (do we all fall in the
>same trap but I hate the way rumours can destroy organisationnal >process).

It is not "rumours" destoying an organisational process, but your irresponsible
actions. How have you shown any desire to reach concensus on this issue?
How have you attempted to create an inclusive process? We have added
further material to the wiki in an attempt to open out discussion on
gender and race, and how women-only meetings evolved in the USa in the
nineteenth century, yet you choose to ignore all this???

In view of your far-from-neutral position as regards the development
of the gender discussion, it would be better if you stepped aside so
that someone else could fulfill this role.

So far your stubbornness on this issue has simply created much ill-will
and your abuse of your position has allowed your racism to poison the
PGA process.

West Essex Zapatista
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.4


Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net

More information about the Pga_europe_process mailing list