The safe schools program is not going to secure safety for cross dressers entering the toilets of the gender they dress. as girls dressed as boys entering male toilets will lead to sexual abuse and boys dressed as girls entering boys toilets as they have done are open to assault.

The only thing to change toilet assault is to have rows of enclosed cubicles without entrance foyer. However street violence will not change. I feel for a cross dress guy in his late 30's raised as a girl by his mother at our church does he use disabled toilets, male or female when he has previously dressed as male.
cont

Lol!...otb trundling along on the Marxist bandwagon.

"So "Safe areas" is a Marxist tool and needs to be understood as such.

The 'victims' are used a a blunt weapon to belt 'capitalism'."

For anyone who's interested, Jason Wilson gives a potted history in this article on the right's "Cultural Marxism....neo-Marxist" bunkum - (referencing Chris Uhlmann's recent article on the subject)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/chris-uhlmann-should-mind-his-language-on-cultural-marxism

"The “cultural Marxism” theory was developed towards the end of the cold war to open up a new front against the left: the culture war against a supposed “political correctness”.

The SPLC describes the theory as “bizarre”, because it is. The Frankfurt School once in the US were primarily focused on the origins of far right authoritarianism, not the subversion of the US."

Any critique of American values they made – for example in the work of Theodore Adorno – was on the basis of a lament for the decline of traditional European high culture in the face of post-war commercial culture. Anyone who thinks otherwise has likely not read their work.

And anyone who looks at the global contemporary capitalist order would find it hard to believe that we are living under a Marxist hegemony.

The decline of traditional values is a result of the relentlessly transformative nature of capitalism itself, not the work of a small group of emigre Marxists who are little read now even among academics."

"In 2002, when they first reported on it, the SPLC called it “the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right”, but worried about “signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream”.

It’s still popular on the far right – increasingly so. Everyone from white nationalists to militant antifeminists on “the redpill right” still relies on it as an explanatory theory of history. The notion was central to the thought of Anders Breivik, who massacred young social democrats in Norway.

But the SPLC were right to predict its penetration of mainstream conservatism. The sclerotic inhabitants of the Australian’s op-ed page appear to have a particular affinity with this line of thought."

Josephus: girls dressed as boys entering male toilets will lead to sexual abuse

No, Girls dressed as boys go to the girls toilet because that's where the girls are that they want to turn Gay.

Hi Poirot,

This is probably getting off the track, but I would have thought that Marcuse and Gramsci were more likely to be the theorists of any post-Marxist 'cultural Marxism', rather than the blokes in the Frankfurt School. I have to admit an admiration for Gramsci or at least sympathy for the tribulations he had to go through all of his life, but even back in the sixties, I considered Marcuse a bit of a show-pony.

My sympathy for Gramsci's bitterness were mirrored in my own experiences in factories, etc. in the sixties and early seventies, anxiously watching for any sign whatever that the workers would ever move in the direction of Revolution. It didn't, and with hindsight, there's no reason why it should have thrown itself on the battlements for the benefit of a revolutionary elite. So, not having read Gramsci then, I thought that maybe there had to be a progressive Indigenous movement which might, in turn, and eventually, re-invigorate the workers. Naïve, naïve, naïve !

But I can't recall any feeling to want to tear down all of the institutions of capitalism, more about how to build better institutions. I don't know if any other ex-Marxists feel the same way ? After all - and I'm obviously taking Uhlmann's analysis as being fairly accurate - once one tears down an institution, like marriage, or freedom of expression, or respect for labour - what does one put in their place ?

[TBC]

[continued]

I suspect that sections of the post-Left are still hooked on the insane notion of provoking repression, such as the urban guerilla movements in South America promoted in the seventies and eighties - that if 'we' can provoke the reactionaries to repress the people to an intolerable level, to bring out the army and secret police and slaughter the people indiscriminately, they will revolt and bingo ! revolution. It didn't work anywhere, by the way. All the people got was more repression.

As well, I suspect that sections of the post-Left still have to reach adulthood and are fixated on their adolescent 'nyah ! nyah !' view of politics, in which any stick which annoys the 'establishment' will do, a sort of child's revolt against their boring, ignorant and repressive parents.

So the question remains: once the institutions of capitalism have been torn down, what should be put in their place, if anything ? Clearly, the sum total of hundreds of years of experience of Soviet- or Chinese-type socialism - command socialism - has not worked - if anything, THEIR institutions have been shown to be bankrupt - and have been torn down in many places.

So again, what do we replace bourgeois or capitalist institutions with, once we have destroyed the people's trust in them ?

Just asking :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

"So the question remains: once the institutions of capitalism have been torn down, what should be put in their place, if anything ? Clearly, the sum total of hundreds of years of experience of Soviet- or Chinese-type socialism - command socialism - has not worked - if anything, THEIR institutions have been shown to be bankrupt - and have been torn down in many places."

Guffaw!

Yeah, it's obvious that capitalism is in real danger of being "torn down".

Cultural Marxism and Neo Marxism are merely umbrella catchphrases for the radical right to shelter under while they're running around shrieking that the sky is falling because someone institutes a program which promotes respect to people they don't approve of.

Like Uhlmann raising the spectre because people critiqued Abbott's speech to a bunch of radical right-wing religious zealots in the US. Uhlmann banged on (as only a self-constructed member of the "New Victim Brigade" could, that those commenting adversely on Abbott's speech were attacking "freedom of speech"...the obvious take from that is that they should shut-up.

He appeared to have overlooked the fact that he was denying other people's right to the freedom he was demanding for Abbott.

You fellas can't see that capitalism itself is the driver of its own societal mores.

Yodelling "It's a Marxist plot" from the rooftops will only find you an audience among fellow right-wing bleaters whose only interest is in indulging their own bigotry.