[Pga_europe_process] Re: [Breakingthesilence] mobility
friday at nadir.org
Mon Jul 5 15:46:27 CEST 2004
Dear West Essex Zapatista,
I think you are introducing an unnecessarily aggressive tone with the style of
your e-mails which will not help this debate.
A lot of the points you make about race and gender are very valid. However, all
people present at the London preparation meeting (including you and me) carry
the responsability for the missing gender discussion. It is not the
responsability of nicolu. There definitely should have been a discussion during
the meeting in London (there wasn't really a session on Monday).
So, let me try and summarise:
There is a block on men-only workshops (raised in Belgrade and not confirmed in
London but still there), and no block on women-only spaces anymore. The reason
for the block on men-only spaces is because race creates clear differences which
have been ignored in the conference preparation discussion so far.
The solutions I can think of:
1. The block on men-only workshops is reaffirmed and there will be no men-only
workshops in Belgrade.
2. The concepts prepared for the men-only workshops include the dimension of
race and maybe the block is cancelled.
3. Everybody gets fed up with the discussion and nobody is willing to prepare
any workshops on gender issues in Belgrade.
My opinion: Quite frankly, I don't care whether you choose option 1 or 2 but I
would like to avoid option 3. Especially since locally in Belgrade, there are
quite some positive dynamics on preparing the gender theme, according to Paula.
Please let us know what your choice is.
Hope this helps.
Quoting paki.tv at cyber-rights.net:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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
> 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
> 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
> It is not "rumours" destoying an organisational process, but your
> 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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
> Version: Hush 2.4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Breakingthesilence mailing list
> Breakingthesilence at gendertrouble.org
More information about the Pga_europe_process