Thursday, February 8, 2018

A question about #MeToo and a brief response

Send to Printer, PDF or Email
Question from Anonymous: What is your opinion of the WSWS's loud opposition to the so-called "me too" movement? 

I think it's consistent with their sectarian politics. They see things in binary terms, not dialectical ones: metoo is reactionary, a witchhunt, neo-McCarthyism, neo-Puritanism etc. The issue of sexual violence against women is mostly discounted. This shouldn't be an either/or proposition. It's possible to be against the overreach of metoo while also being in solidarity with victims of sexual violence; indeed such solidarity is the only legitimate basis for countering the reactionary tendencies of this movement. To read the WSWS is to be left wondering whether the sexual oppression of women even exists.

Frank Brenner


Anonymous said...

I have read a couple of David Walsh's pieces on this MeToo phenomenon and it comes off as utterly hysterical and also confusing. Why are they spending so much time writing these excessively long pieces arguing for the legal rights of these .1%ers?

Thankfully, I have long ago left the narrow sectarianism of the WSWS behind (I found it astonishing that every resolution I saw on their site passed unanimously).

gerdowning said...

David North thought that the question of Gerry Healy's sex abuse was a diversion from 'real' political questions. Roman Polanski was a victim of his 13 year old victim whom he raped twice, Dominic Strauss Khan was a victim of the hotel maidbwhom hevsexually assaulted. And Harvey Weinstein did not get due process. But no due process for Polanski who should serve no time for raping the child. They have absolutely the worst position on women's oppression.

Anonymous said...

This blog has an increasingly broad and diverse range of allies. For much of 2015, its authors heralded the Syriza government in Greece as the way forward for the working class internationally. Messrs. Steiner and Brenner, however, have not found great occasion to reflect on these positions in the current social misery being inflicted upon the Greek working class by Syriza. It appears to be a case of moving on and hoping that everybody forgets what was said not so long ago.

And now Mr Brenner describes a scurrilous media witch-hunt launched by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Democratic Party as a "movement" that one must demonstrate "solidarity" with. Never mind that this is a "movement" of the pro-war upper middle-class in favor of abolishing the presumption of innocence, trial by a jury of peers and other basic democratic rights defending the individual against the state.

From Alexis Tsipras, Syriza and the pro-austerity Greek government, you now appear to be signalling support for the Oprah Winfrey's of the world, and not far behind them, the Democratic Party...

Anonymous said...

Somebody posted your comment in their comment section and David North launched a lengthy attack on Brenner. I encourage you to see the nonsense he cooks up in the comment section:

muskrat said...

Anonymous, I believe one big reason that WSWS is commenting on the MeToo movement as much as it has is that Walsh's articles have garnered a great many readers comments. The latest article had 77 comments at my last view although that article wasn't written by Walsh. Apparently, WSWS readers are taking great interest in the WSWS's coverage. I am curious as to how Healy and his transgressions work into North's viewpoint on MeToo. From what I have read it looks like the SLL/WRP and their satellite organizations had some pretty backward views on womens and gay rights issues back in the 70s and 80s.
I have been studying up rather intensively on the SEP/WSWS and their previously organizational manifestations of late, and I have drawn a number of conclusions. I won't share the bulk of them in this post but the one that I will share relates to the SEP/WSWS. In my opinion the SEP is not so much a political party as it is a left wing news service. Whereas in the past the WL and most other left political organizations intervened in various political struggles by organizing forums,demonstrations,contingents in demonstrations, and a variety of other activities the SEP sends in a team of reporters. Yes, I think that their interviews with participants in the struggles they are covering are valuable, but one has to ask why does the SEP decline to participate as an organization in these events? I see the SEP as being primarily a literary sect that is overly dependent on the internet for its existence. In the long run this isn't going to work out for them.

Adam Cortright said...

The WSWS's valuable and courageous stance against MeToo is significant. One example is the WSWS's accurately predicting, and bringing to light of, the censorship that has taken place against works of art and the careers of actors and comedians that have been snuffed out of existence on the basis of mere accusations or for minor offenses clearly undeserving of being lumped in with rape or sexual assault. This is an alarming manifestation of what is an inherently anti-democratic movement. The authoritarianism that suggests the ruling class knows what's best for workers, in fact society at large, arises organically out of the nature of the MeToo movement. It has nothing at all to do with defending the rights of working class women not to be harassed in the workplace. It is appalling--even for the likes of the unprincipled Steiner and Brenner--that they would not be vociferous opponents of MeToo. Appalling, but like much of what the pseudo-left says and does, not surprising.

Linda zises said...

As we well know Capitalism pollutes every aspect of human life. In this latest scandal, women are exposing the commodification of their being with the added benefit of being able and willing to identify particular individuals of note.

However, it is the entire society that supports and manufactures this depersonalization of women just as it depersonalizes people all over the world reducing people to numbers that cruelly hold little importance when measured in terms of potential wealth of Capitalists

article is so confused it made my head spin..