unfortunately, the collective view seems to filter out the name of the person sending the messages, so not sure whom I'm responding to, June I guess ? just to clarify, my comments are not related to supporting the fact that there are not enough women in the government, I strongly deplore that my comments are a response to the demand that alternative movements should fully integrate the demands of an idealized form of awareness and be perfect in that sense ... Syriza has other weaknesses that I deplore .. it's commons orientation is weak, it's ecological orientation is very weak (I heard), and the lack of female representation is another .. this being said, should we stop critically rejoicing because of it. My answer is no, critical support is needed, pointing out the above and other weaknesses is part of that support .. Michel <<Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 06:29:10 -0800 From: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] [Networkedlabour] Another Politics - After Syriza To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Anna Harris <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Thank you, Michel and Vasilis for getting the actual clarification data. I had meant the actual "ministers" though it is good to know that women are there to help out as "deputy ministers". That is more sincerely meant, than it might sound. But no Michel, I like you too much and value the work you do with the P2P Foundation too much, to let you or the P2P Foundation off the hook as accepting that asking for more female (and other previously left out "others") representation in the leadership of a modern industrialised "new-vision" Commons-oriented government in the year 2015, is too "radical" an ask. Again, that makes no "Commons sense" to me and shouldn't to anyone. I think my "support" (and Anna's clearly it seemed to me) is actually given rather than withdrawn in these very comments, warning that not addressing these underlying "misses", certainly in not admitting and validating them, is the very reality-most-likely to-derail any hoped for true value-systems change that all sustainable political-economic systems rest on or certainly fall on, ultimately. Why it is seen as "either/or" and oppositional to even raise these warning flags in order to easily, and it is quite easily done, rectify them or put it on the agenda to rectify them down the line, seems to me a very old paradigm to work from. I certainly understand not letting the "perfect be the enemy of the good" when there are so many real "enemies", but as my last comment on this, this would seem to fall more under "but we are practicing what we preach in the p2p foundation, with difficulty, with problems, but attempting it nevertheless" -- Michel In essence, it is this discussion that makes me feel that's true, not in not having it at all. Really supportively meant, Michel, June -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/