What's behind Putin's attack on LGBTQI rights?

The terrible attacks on the rights of the LGBTQI community in Russia are an integral part of Putin's strategy to whip up reactionary ideas, such as nationalism, religion and racism, in order to help him establish a more authoritarian regime. Putin is playing upon the public's ignorance and prejudices towards gay issues and is manipulating people's narrow-mindedness and unwarranted fears over it. As the Guardian pointed out in January 2013, the attack on LGBTQI rights is “part of an official drive to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to western liberalism, which the Kremlin and church see as corrupting youth and by extension contributing to a wave of protest against Putin's rule.”

But the attacks on LGBTQI rights are not simply bigotry or prejudice on the part of Putin and the ruling elite. Many of them are, of course, cultural dinosaurs, but there is a deeper political reason behind it. They see the LGBTQI community as a more general threat to the political system and their power and privileges. The Russian elite doesn't only rule because of its control of the repressive tools of the state, it must also depend on the psychology of the population and the maintenance of conventional thinking which supports the status quo.

The key pillar of society and the foundations upon which the state is built are to be found in the traditional family unit and the so-called “values” which go with it. Within the stereotyped family we find the bedrock of class society. At its head stands the all-powerful father, representing the male-dominated ruling class, whose word cannot be challenged, the subjugated, semi slave-like position of the mother, reflecting the status of women as second class citizens and the naivety and blind obedience of the children, who represent the masses.

LGBTQI people, however, challenge this conception and so are seen as a threat to the system. By living and thinking outside the “social box,” they threaten the fundamental premises upon which the mentality and habits of the mass of people are based and upon which the hierarchy of class rule depends. Of course, most LGBTQI people are only demanding an end to discrimination, equality and democratic rights and not necessarily the overthrow of the entire socio-economic system. But the regime doesn't see it like that. It considers these demands to be a dangerous and subversive attack on their rule.

The elite in Russia worries that if such “deviant behavior” and dissident thinking is not checked and, instead, LGBTQI rights and lifestyles start to gain acceptance from the wider population, it will undermine traditional notions of the family. They are afraid that once that happens, people will also start to think “outside the box” and this wont limit itself to gay issues. What worries them is that people will start thinking more critically in general and lead people to reflect upon the fundamental ideas at the heart of a system, such as the nuclear family, the position of women and the current way society is run. It is for this reason that LGBTQI people are being persecuted and demonized by the regime and it is part of the whole strategy of reinforcing conservative, backward thinking and prejudices through the manipulation of religion, nationalism and racism.

Thus in Russia and in similar authoritarian regimes, LGBTQI issues are inextricably linked to the general struggle for democratic rights and freedom of expression, women's liberation, the defense of ethnic and religious minorities and an end to racism and discrimination, as well as the support for a secular state, combined with an internationalist outlook, which challenges narrow nationalist thinking.

This is exactly what Pussy Riot have done. They have linked all these issues together and fought to break conservative thinking and traditional views. They have exposed the machinations of Putin on LGBTQI issues and similar questions and, in doing so, they have challenged the foundations of the Putin's “Power Vertical” state. This is why they are seen as such a threat to the system and it is why they have been persecuted and imprisoned."

Russians leaving Orthodox Church over Pussy Riot!

Russians Leaving Orthodox Church for Other Christian Denominations, because of Pussy Riot and its ties to the state

16 Apr 2013 Paul Goble Estonian World Review

Staunton, April 16 – There are now more than 15,000 Protestant congregations in the Russian Federation, according to a Moscow expert, a figure that surpasses the total of Russian Orthodox parishes and reflects in part Russian flight from the latter because of growing anger about the policies of the Moscow Patriarchate and the approach of many of its priests.

An article in “Novyye izvestiya” reports that a Levada Center poll has found that the number of people identifying as Orthodox has fallen by six percent since 2009, a reflection of the anger of many believers about such Moscow Patriarchal actions as the condemnation of the Pussy Riot demonstration (newizv.ru/society/2013-04-11/180944-v-poiskah-vernogo-puti.html).

Few of these committed believers ever change denomination, Lunkin says, and consequently “the growth in the number of congregants of other Christian churches is occurring among the potential Orthodox Russian population which declares that it belongs to Orthodox culture, is patriotic but chooses another faith.”

Lunkin says that the Russian Orthodox Church has only itself to blame for such losses. “In the Orthodox Church alongside faith or sometimes in place of faith in Christ is offered faith in great Holy Russia, in the state, in patriotic values in ‘United Russia,’ but just no in Christ. People who choose another Christian church are consciously choosing simply faith.”

For many Russians, he continues, the way in which the Moscow Patriarchate responded to the Pussy Riot scandal offended them, not because they supported the girls involved but rather because “they saw in Orthodoxy part of the state machine which does not display mercy or follow the message of the Gospels.”

Read full article

Also a Russian poll by Levada Center says 63% of Russians believe an administrative punishment for Pussy Riot would have been enough and not jail

Thatcher and Women - a Socialist Feminist View

Thatcher and Women - a Socialist Feminist View 

by Felicity Dowling

Some women will indeed consider a woman, any woman, gaining the position of Prime Minister is a victory for all women. The experience of Thatcher in office was though, profoundly negative for all but the richest of women. I suggest that the experience of Merkel is little different, Merkel presides over the most savage attack on the living standards of women in Europe for 70 years.

One sliver of benefit to a young woman of Thatcher’s premiership might have been that they realized that a woman (and therefore, by inference, herself) as capable of achieving the highest office. The young woman’s personal aspirations and confidence may well have been enhanced by this. The fact that Thatcher was overtly strong and powerful also may have helped might help break gender stereo types.

There is a model of feminism which has regard to a ‘race’ or competition between men and women where men have historic, material and cultural advantages. Whilst this model has some validity, it has been developed and distorted by the hegemonic ideas of neo-liberal economics and by the media.

Debates about how women can progress individually or as a group can continue, can sometimes be discussed with vigor and academic effort but without regard to the suffering and damage being done to women in their own countries and in different parts of the world.

Some women in are exploring real issues, though not, to my mind, the crucial ones. This model is of limited effect in a struggle for a better world for all women; it overlooks the role of community, class and of social and economic history.

Some though not all women who follow this line of debate and consequent action are pro-capitalist and part of the neo-liberal project.

Thatcher proclaimed there was no community and was an enemy of those who sought to defend it. As well as proclaiming there is no community, she attempted publicly to deny class antagonisms but she fought the class war ruthlessly.

Socialist feminists in contrast recognize and proclaim community and class interest, We want to protect, develop and improve our communities (and by extension the planet) and the interest of our class. This struggle must consciously oppose violence against women and stand against patriarchy.

Thatcher had real significance. She was a pioneer of neo liberal capitalism. Across the globe (except possibly China) the period since the 1970s has been one were gains of the post war period were either robbed out right or eroded away. Even the boom of the early 21st century saw re-structuring in many parts of the globe and globalization which saw worsening of conditions of employment and life in the US and Europe.

The primitive accumulation of capital is intensified by the crisis in capitalist economy. The process of primitive accumulation includes part of robbing the commons.

The commons are, at its simplest, the assets and customs of the inhabitants of this planet which are owned/held in common by everyone and no-one. The robbing of the commons particularly affects women as individuals and in their role as carers in families and the wider community. Women traditionally hold community history and knowledge but are also vulnerable in many ways.

Crucially the crisis of capitalism has meant that this process is sharpened and hastened and in this women suffer terrible violence. Women in their role as the reproducers of labour, in their role of nurturing the community, the role guardians of historic knowledge are especially at risk.

Austerity in Europe is critically damaging the lives of women; we are in the very early stages of struggle to defend ourselves. We call on all women who value the lives and struggles of other women to stand with us in the fight.

We have no antagonism to those women whose focus is on the roles and successes of the individual woman in a capitalist world. We believe though, that any future for all women and our communities depends on us organizing for the end of capitalism.

Since the early 19th and early 20th century in the UK women’s rights have been seen and fought for through a class prism. Emmaline Pankhurst wanted votes for women but not for servants; her daughter Sylvia in contrast chose the side of working women; standing against xenophobia of world war 1 and with the newly organised working class of the era immediately after world war one.

The experience of women under Thatcher was no better than under a male prime minister; the list of conflicts between Thatcher and different groups of women is long.

We would invite all women wishing for a better future for themselves and their sisters to join us in the fight against austerity and against capitalism.

by Felicity Dowling http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialistdiscussion/

Was Thatcher really and an Alien? The Evidence!

Was Thatcher really an Alien?
The Evidence!

Thatcher's “Feminism”?

Thatcher's “Feminism”?

Following the death of Margaret Thatcher there have been numerous articles painting her as some sort of feminist Superwoman breaking through impenetrable roofs and flying through the air on a mission to liberate women. You can find statements almost everywhere in the media praising her for “breaking the ceiling” and setting an example to women everywhere as a role model and inspiration. But if you knew something of her time as Prime Minister, you'll find out that nothing could be further from the truth.

Thatcher once said “I owe nothing to feminism.” Indeed, she held the feminist movement in contempt. In a lecture on women’s rights in 1982, she commented "I hate those strident tones we hear from some women's libbers." One of her cabinet colleagues quoted her as saying feminism “left her cold.”

Why? Beatrix Campbell, a feminist writer and author said in a BBC radio debate."Thatcher hated feminism. It's an egalitarian project, and she was an elitist -- never an egalitarian," In fact, Thatcher considered that “The battle for women's rights has been largely won.” Well, it was certainly won for her, but I doubt that the majority of women would feel it has been won for them.

In fact, when it comes to “breaking the ceiling,” she definitely got through herself, but she didn't help anyone else to get there with her. In the 11 years she spent in office as British Prime Minister, she only appointed one women to serve on her cabinet, Janet Young, who served for only 2 years and worked tirelessly to oppose legalization on gay rights, in particular opposing the right of lesbian and gay men to adopt children.

Lesley Abdela a leading feminist who works on empowering women and who set up the “300 GROUP” campaign to get more women elected to public office in Britain, pointed out in a CNN article that, “Thatcher had such command over her Conservative Party that if she had chosen to do so she could have advanced large numbers of qualified women into public and political posts. She chose not to do so.” In fact, “ “As prime minister, Thatcher did almost nothing to promote women's rights actively.” - “I don't think she understood women's rights.” As Robin Abcarian in the Los Angeles Times remarked. "But she shouldn't be celebrated for blazing trails for women. By sheer will, she hacked open her own path to the top, then let it close behind her."

Thatcher, of course, did nothing for the majority of women. Most women are working class and Thatcher's anti-working class policies pushed them out of jobs, cut social benefits and, if anything, forced more women into the home through unemployment. These women were certainly “breaking the ceiling,” and also banging their heads against the walls.

Well, you might say, at least she did something for professional women. Unfortunately not. 23 years after she left office, The same LA Times article reported ” that “Lean In”, new advice book for professional women by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, is full of grim statistics about women’s standing in the public sphere: only 22 of the world’s 197 heads of state are women, only 21 of the Fortune 500 CEOs are women, women hold only 14% of executive officer positions, 16% of board seats, and just 18% of U.S. congressional seats.” So much for breaking the ceiling.

But what did Thatcher think was the cause of her own success as a woman getting to the top? On taking office in 1979, she said “Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.” There you go girls! Don't bother going to university and get qualifications to advance your career, run a home instead – cook, clean, wash the clothes and take care of the kids and you'll make it to the top.

But then her view of women started from her belief in traditional family views. As the BBC commented on her death Thatcher “stood for “traditional family values” and “ believed that Victorian family values were the way to improve society.” For her the article continues, “Conventional marriage and a nuclear family were the building blocks” of society. Some of you might remember that famous quote of her's which summed up the pillars of her philosophy, “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

A good example of her traditional, Victorian approach was her attitude to single unmarried mothers whose situation she considered to be one that “"devalues our values, our community." The BBC reported that in this speech she suggested that, "It is far better to put these children in the hands of a very good religious organisation, and the mother as well, so that they will be brought up with family values." Actually, she did face some dilemmas about the practicalities of this. Since the idea wasn't in fact practical, she had to discuss whether it was better to cut social benefits for single parents, in order to force them to find work, or not cut them because it went against the principle that women should stay ay home to bring up the child at least until they reached 5 years of age.

Well if that's “breaking the ceiling,” women have a long way further up to go.

Video Fun Thatcher Sings " I Did it My Way"

Thatcher sings I Did It My Way

Thatcher and Government Cabinet (executive)