This was originally shared by Marissa Sanchez in a note with the following content:

As I am finalizing my own response to the Central Committee’s “true narrative” about what happened to me, I am deeply appreciative of others who are taking the time to read their response carefully and assess what it reveals.

I especially appreciate this piece for calling attention to the fact that I signed the Steven Powers letter in 2020, and yet now find myself subjected to the same insinuations that I am a wrecker, a state agent, or someone whose criticisms must be understood as part of an attack on the Party rather than engaged with for its own substance.

I think there is an important lesson in that for every comrade to internalize.

One of the things I have had to reckon with from my own time in the PSL and on the NDC is how, when the Party comes under criticism, women comrades are placed in front of and made to bear those criticisms. Our identities become something the Party wields defensively against people who criticize it. I wish I had understood more clearly what was being asked of me in 2020. I wish I had thought more independently and critically about the role I was being asked to play then. It has taken a great deal of personal development for me to understand that role and to take responsibility for having allowed myself to play it.

As I said in my own essay: if PSL members can change the organization, great. I mean that sincerely. But this is one place where I differ from the hopes expressed in this piece. I do not believe the Party can be reformed by its membership in the ways this comrade is calling for.

The Central Committee’s response to me, and what I am hearing about the way I continue to be discussed in internal meetings and in one-on-one conversations with members, has only deepened that conclusion for me. Right now, rather than seriously assessing the organizational shortcomings that allowed these events to happen, Party leadership is working seemingly tirelessly to discredit me and to reinforce it’s increasingly closed internal narrative about why criticism exists in the first place.

I hope everyone following this situation will read this piece carefully. And I especially hope we will all think seriously about what it means that someone who once helped defend the Party against these very kinds of criticisms can so easily become their target when she is the one speaking.

For my part, my branch has expelled me. I'm officially no longer a party member after years of work, hundreds of hours, signing the lease on our Liberation Center, and helping to found the branch. This has hit our branch very hard; but leadership has doubled down and closed ranks.

I'm looking into other cadre orgs to join and work with, and looking to try and build an alternative here with the expectation that the party will not be able to handle this contradiction and will implode. Wish us luck 🤞

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

even a properly-run organization will have to recruit from a pool where up to 95% of men are removeds

This study was alarming, thanks for sharing it. At the risk of downplaying the results, or maybe just to discuss more, I don't think that is an accurate summary of what it found; what it found wasn't great, don't get me wrong. It is still very normal for men to push sexual boundaries of women. It should be noted that:

  1. The study's participants included only men (mostly straight) who have been sexually active in the past 2 years
  2. The definition of sexual force includes things like the man "[telling] her whatever she wanted to hear" (this was the most frequent tactic)
  3. This was an anonymous online survey

Regarding #1, this might not affect the result that much, but should be noted ~30% of young men are not sexually active. For #2, I find this very troubling but nonetheless different from SA, and I wonder how much of that 95% is people who admitted to only that tactic. I would connect it to the history of "wooing" / courtship and its modified expression in modern dating, which carries with it all of the misogyny in which women were much more directly positioned as property. Both men and women are trained to accept courtship as a norm. Part of that is persistence (on the part of the man) and modesty (on the part of the woman), both of which contribute to the trampling of women's autonomy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • i have my own problems with the study, which is why i said "up to". for one, it makes no attempt to control for the website or subreddit where the man found the survey. since it mixes redpill websites with more "normal" social media, i think the actual number might be quite a bit lower. as for number 2, is your contention that i shouldn't have said "rape"? it may have been stronger language than i should have used. in that case, "up to" just wouldn't cut it. it should be noted that, as far as i can tell, the study itself never actually used that word. overall, i think the study is the best of its kind, but only because it's the only one of its kind, or at least the only one i've heard of thus far. it has its shortcomings but as far as i can tell, it's the best we've got. please correct me if there's something better

  • source
  • parent