Men and women's liberation
The question of men's participation in the International Women's Day march was recently debated in the Melbourne IWD collective. We were disappointed with the majority of collective members' decision to ban men's participation in the IWD march.
We support an independent women's movement: that is, the right of oppressed people to organise themselves, pursue the aims of their movement and put forward demands and politics independent of the needs of political parties, and concentrate their actions on winning their demands, regardless of how this may impact on any major political party or other ruling-class body.
We support the right of women to organise themselves in women-only collectives and to organise their own actions to put forward their own demands and political outlook. Because IWD collectives, for example, are leading bodies in the feminist movement and women must lead that movement, the collectives must be composed of and directed by women.
Our chief concern is that making the movement separate — rather than independent — will weaken its ability to win its demands. Every movement, every organising body of every movement, should make its own decisions about political demands and action. But every movement also needs allies and friends in order to maximise the political impact of its statement. In that regard, the women's movement is no different from any other movement against oppression, whether it be a national liberation movement, the anti-racism movement, gay liberation or peace movement.
All men do benefit from women's oppression to different degrees, but it is the capitalist class that gains the most from and needs women's oppression. Working-class men can only benefit from ending women's oppression because it means an end to one of the pillars upon which the system which also oppresses them is built. To ban men from actively and publicly supporting the demands of an IWD march (i.e. participating in the march) sends the message that women's liberation is only a concern for women, something that men don't need to do anything about.
We are also concerned that the ban on men does not address the concerns of women from migrant communities, many of whom want the men of their communities to participate.
A particular concern this year is that one of the key demands of the day is for native title and justice for indigenous people, yet Aboriginal men are being banned from participating in this action.
What is needed is an independent women's movement that is serious about winning its demands by building a mass movement of women and their allies — and that means women and men marching together for women's liberation. The Melbourne Uni Resistance club will be campaigning vigorously on campus to build the IWD rally.
Melbourne University Resistance Club
[Abridged.]
@letter head = Hands off Iraq!
Francesca Davidson's article "US hands off Iraq!" (GLW #305) was a welcome relief amid the chorus of support for the US to crush Iraq by the Murdoch and Packer media. I would like to add three points:
1. The article correctly pointed out that the US' main interest in Iraq is to "protect its economic and political interests in the Arab world, regardless of the need and rights of its inhabitants", but Saddam Hussein's history of repression should also be opposed. Hussein's regime should be ended, not by the US whose economic blockade and military intervention have only made the Iraqi people suffer more, but by the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples suffering under his regime.
2. While the UN inspectors incident has given the US a pretext to impose force, people have a right to know who is stockpiling nuclear weapons. The problem is, the US asserts that only they and their allies can have these weapons and everybody else can only have them if they have permission (read control) by the US.
3. Some members of the UN Security Council are seeking a negotiated settlement this time around. But why? Not because France is concerned about nuclear weapons (remember Moruroa Atoll) or because China is concerned about the potential loss of life (remember Tiananmen). It can only be because these governments calculated they have more to gain (particularly for trade) than lose from a diplomatic solution.
Springwood NSW
[Abridged.]
@letter head = Iraq solidarity
After more than seven years of cruel sanctions, resulting in over 1.5 million deaths due to food shortages and lack of medicine, the people of Iraq face another devastating war. The United States and Britain are preparing for military action against Iraq. Their position is in sharp contrast to Russia, France, Egypt, and China, UN Security Council members who are seeking a peaceful resolution to the current crisis.
US president Clinton asked the Australian Prime Minister to commit Australian military forces to the Anglo-American war drive. The Iraqi Australian Friendship Bureau of Victoria calls on all Australian citizens, who oppose the use of military forces to resolve the current dispute, to make their views known to the Australian Government.
It is clearly not in Australia's interest, nor in the interests of peace, for Australia to support aggression against Iraq. We ask you to support the following initiatives:
1. Letters and fax messages opposing the Australian Government's support for military action against Iraq and the deployment of Australian defence forces, can be sent to:
The Hon. John Howard, Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 and The Hon. Tim Fischer, Deputy Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600, fax (06) 273 4128 or (06) 273 3752;
The Hon. Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600, fax (06) 273 3752.
2. The sister organisation of our bureau, the Baghdad-based Iraqi Australian Friendship Association requests the friendship and solidarity of all the peace-loving people of Australia. Messages and statements may be addressed to Mr. Hamid Rashed Al-rawi, Chairman, Iraqi-Australian Friendship Association c/o Iraqi-Australian Friendship Bureau of Victoria-Australia, PO Box 165, Yarraville Vic 3013, fax (03) 9399 2129.
3. Letters and messages calling for a peaceful resolution to the crisis and condemning all military aggression may also be sent to local and state newspapers. Our Bureau appreciates copies of all letters submitted.
On behalf of the suffering people of Iraq please accept our deepest thanks and appreciation for all your efforts for peace.
Chairman
Iraqi-Australian Friendship Bureau of Victoria
[Abridged.]
@letter head = President
Your (nameless?) writer's assertion that "popular election of the president is clearly the best alternative" (GLW #304) seems naive to say the least. One person, i.e., the president, could not, and would not, act according to popular wishes in all matters, no matter how elected. And would we really want she or he to do so?
As the writer of "Selecting a president" states: "If the new president were to be purely a figurehead, the method of selection would hardly matter". What fails to be acknowledged in this article however, is that the method of selection would play a great part in determining the extent of the president's powers. A popularly elected president is clearly the worst possible option. Such a president could claim a mandate that no one elected by parliament, to an office which retained similar duties to that of the current Governor General's, could ever claim.
I am a little puzzled as to how one of your writers can still hold so much faith in "popular opinion" and the democratic voting process, after the election of the Howard Government in this country. Do you really think the same electorate would vote for a president who would further the green left cause? I'm not so optimistic.
Popular opinion has had a major influence in our major parties, through constant market surveying during recent decades that has shown that the majority of people have placed the economy above the environment, education, or health, as the issue of prime importance. Is this popular opinion deservedly so highly valued?
The U.S. political model clearly demonstrates how professed "democracy" can lead to the worst kind of capitalistic imperialism. U.S. presidents(popularly elected millionaires), their "First Ladies" and families are American royalty. If Australia were to adopt the system of popular election of the president, we could be replacing one form of royalty with another.
P.S. It's Friedrich Engels, not "Frederick" (GLW #304). Or is it not such a discourtesy to Anglocise a German's name as that of any other non-Anglo-Saxon descendant.
White Gum Valley WA
[Abridged.]
@letter head = President 2
Shafted, shafted, shafted. Beware of strange Stones bearing brotherhood. Just when it seemed that the option of popularly electing Australia's head of state was about to be resurrected at the constitutional convention up galloped the Northern Territory's Chief Minister to the rescue.
With the unuttered cry of "All power to the politicians" pushing at his lips he has saved us all from the evils of democracy. After all, he has to think of the future, where the Northern Territory's own constitutional convention is soon to occur with no popularly elected delegates.
Alawa, NT
@letter head = Muchtar Pakpahan
I was very disappointed to read the contents of the interview with Indonesian trade unionist, Muchtar Pakpahan, chairperson of SBSI (GLW #305).
I have been actively involved in a campaign to release political prisoners in Indonesia, one of whom is Muchtar Pakpahan, held in connection with the riots in Jakarta in 1996. I was disgusted to hear him openly stating his support for Tutut Suharto as a successor to her dictator father.
Pakpahan has been renowned around the world as a democratic opposition figure who, like the activists inside the People's Democratic Party, whose members are also in prison, has had deep injustices committed against him by the dictatorship. To support Tutut Suharto who has become a millionaire on the backs of the toiling Indonesian workers whose cause Pakpahan is said to champion, is an outrage. I applaud other Indonesian activists, fighting on as best as they can from jail, for democracy for their people, without making their peace with their jailers.
Melbourne
@letter head = Men at IWD
The Melbourne International Women's Day Collective has had some heated discussion around the topic of men's participation at IWD. It was pretty disappointing to note that instead of trying to convince collective members of the validity of their argument (that men should not be allowed to march), Left Alliance resorted to typical ALP style politics of "meeting stacking".
One gets the impression that for Left Alliance it is more about having the numbers and not about which is the best strategy to eliminate sexism and racism in our society. While Left Alliance members were adamant to exclude men from the most radical and political aspect of the day (the march), they could not substantiate their demand politically. Instead of concentrating debate on the constructive role of men in supporting the women's movement, individual contributions centred on personal preference or dislike, such as "I really don't like men" and deteriorated into guilt tripping e.g."If men can march, I won't come".
Is this all Left Alliance can come up with? An International Women's Day Collective meeting is neither a personal chat nor a therapy session. The Collective's role is to try and counter the increasingly fierce attacks on women, to help build a strong, healthy and vibrant women's movement to end our oppression. The theme "Women united for Justice and Native Title" has the potential to unite the women's, Aboriginal and anti-racism movement. It is a sad state of affairs when the exclusive and narrow vision of a student group is being imposed (by very undemocratic means) on all women and their allies in the fight for liberation.
Melbourne DSP and IWD collective member