anarcha-feminist intervention
anarcha-feminist | 07.06.2009 20:55 | Gender
A group of anarcha-feminists interrupted the Sunday afternoon plenary session of the conference. They spoke about the problem of sexism in both capitalist society and the 'movement', and projected a short film on the subject.
You can read the full statement, watch the film, and find out more, at www.nopretence.wordpress.com
You can read the full statement, watch the film, and find out more, at www.nopretence.wordpress.com
anarcha-feminist
e-mail:
nopretence@riseup.net
Homepage:
http://www.nopretence.wordpress.com
Comments
Hide the following 78 comments
Intervention
07.06.2009 22:14
One part which did pissed me off is associating the male anarchist speakers at the anarchist rally in March with the male speakers in the house of commons (watch the video) - in split screen. There was an obvious editing of the 2-3 women that did speak from that platform who were some of the most powerful, spot on speakers at that rally.
Anyhow, more reports on London IMC regarding conference
Al
btw. I think if we all are going to take this on board we should do so by questioning why there are so few women involved in specifically anarchist politics as opposed to the climate camp which has a stronger involvement by women.
al
No pretence? You're having a laugh!
07.06.2009 22:17
The intervention today reminded me of the antics of the League of Empire Loyalists when they turned up at Tory conferences blacked up and denounced everyone present as traitors. Today nopretence turned up at the anarchist conference masked up, claiming that 'covering up makes it easier to communicate'. There seemed to be little desire to communicate, as after the theatre the nopretence activists made themselves scarce. Not only that, but given the honest, face to face discussion which characterised the conference, masking up seemed to put up a barrier, not remove one. At a time when more women than ever wear religious veils, voluntarily covering your face is, to say the least, a retrograde step.
I've mentioned honesty. There was a lack of it in the film. One of the best speakers at the anarchist rally following the Put People First march on 28 March was a woman. Footage was shown of other speakers - all men. She has been edited out of history to prove a point. Anyone could have spoken at the anarchist rally: there was a deliberate and announced 'open mike' policy. To suggest that the rally was only addressed by men is peculiarly dishonest. Contrasting with the rally was footage from Parliament, again showing only men speaking. Where were the powerful women from Parliament? Where were Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith, Teresa May, Hazel Blears or Patricia Hewitt? This was, at best, underhanded.
The Class War poster highlighted in the film was one of a series, others of which featured two men kissing and another Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Class War received, and responded to, a number of emails about the posters, including printing a letter and reply in the next issue of CW. The posters, incidentally designed by an anarcha-feminist, promoted an extremely successful event attended by over 100 people, many of whom were new to anarchist ideals. The number offended was considerably less.
The leaflet for the conference also comes in for some criticism. It depicts a faceless female figure, which I took to be a sort of anarchist everywoman. This is a standard practice for people producing leaflets - but doubtless if it had been a faceless man it would still have come in for criticism. The organisers of the conference were placed in a no-win situation!
We're told that there's a choice forced on us between fighting the state and fighting sexism. Utter bollocks. Where the rest of the leaflet recognises that there are a range of structures within society, this part ignores it. As most anarchists recognise, we need to fight on a number of fronts, against (for example) bosses as well as cops. Our anarchism is expressed in our everyday lives or it's nothing. And in our everyday lives we clearly spend much of our time dealing with relationships with other people: we don't take on the state seven days a week. So it's not an either-or, either state or sexism, but an and - state and sexism.
Perhaps the largest non-state institution which perpetuates sexism within society is religion. Yet there's no mention of that within the leaflet. Given the unfortunate rise in religosity in recent years, I would have thought that as well as opposing capitalism and racism, anarcha-feminists would advocate the 'no gods' as well as 'no masters' aspect of anarchism. It's disappointing to see it ignored.
Final word
You can pretend to do something about sexism in the movement through a stunt. It's a lot easier than actually engaging with people and fighting against it.
Rizla
questionable video
07.06.2009 22:19
The video was good in places also, in particular the comparison between the Class War poster and Nuts magazine, which definately needed some serious critique.
HOWEVER your footage showing the anarchists at speakers corner was totally skewed, because I was at that event, and for the hour or so I stayed, I saw two women speakers and about four male. The fact you censored this out of your video somewhat betrays the truth. What's more, it was Speakers Corner where, as you full well know, ANYBODY is welcome to come and speak.
Another thing, you showed a woman within the anarchist movement holding a child, as if to say that's what she's expected to do by the male-dominated movement. I dare say this photo was merely a woman looking after her child and nothing more, which has been twisted around to suggest something more oppressive.
You claimed you felt shut out of the conference with regards to the issue of sexism and patriarchy, yet in our group we had over an hour's discussion on it (although of course it was bought up by a female member of the group, who was in an obvious minority). However I think all members in the room were pretty open to discussion about it.
My point is, is it really the fault of males in the anarchist movement that women are under-represented? Obviously there are some patronising and sexist male attitudes that need to be confronted, but personally I think the problem is more an external one that an internal one. Needless to say it's an issue that needs addressing and I'm glad you bought it up.
Your video though, is definately sketchy in a lot of places if you ask me.
Man
Such a typical reaction
07.06.2009 22:46
I think the point is that the "movement" isnt addressing sexism or gender inequalities, not that all men are sexist!
why is it?
why is it?
07.06.2009 23:18
Rizla
i might be wrong....
07.06.2009 23:27
i really like one of the links on the no pretence website, written by a man (cos men can be feminists and being a feminist does not mean hating men), dealing with problem behaviours in meetings and in working together....
check it out and see if we can't, before speaking and reacting, spend a little more time really thinking about the intervention and the video (which i am certain is not attempting to be literal, but to make a point and generate a discussion about women's visual and verbal absences in our movement - responding with "well i saw 2 women speak actually" is a little bit missing the point - and really, as anarchists, let's not start listing all of the "powerful" women in parliament.... really...)
the advice in the link above is that we all start practicing "shutting the fuck up", particularly at those times and spaces when we are most prone to fill up space with words, and reflect on what that feels like, what we end up noticing and realising as a result, and what is the meaning of our need to respond quickly, logically etc with counter-examples and criticisms is really about.....
viral
fucking hell
08.06.2009 03:11
I haven't been there (don't like wasting time on conferences where nothing really comes out of it and in this country there is definitely too much talk already while too little action) so I am only basing on the report above but storming in and interrupting anarchist meeting masked up and starting a debate is just really pathetic. Fuck me, your issues will be never taken seriously with that kind of MO- and I don't mind disruption of the meeting itself, nothing wrong with that ;). Honestly- masked up activists storming a meeting and trying to start a debate- if I would be there I would seriously piss myself. Want to talk? Talk openly and face-to-face. Want to confront sexism? Don't hide behind fucking masks, nobody will be hunting you down or persecuting you.
Quite impressive technical skills with the video- pity the content was so manipulative and shit.
an anarchist not from here
Lots of Pretence
08.06.2009 07:09
At Speakers Corner there was a feeling of openness, and a feeling the @ movement was trying, tentatively to do something new. That weekend you could also see an indication of a dead or dying left, and what may emerge as an alternative. The boys and girls did good!
The Class War event was naturally less political, but brought a huge number of people along to an anarchist event, many for the first time. There was certainly more women at that than there were at Anarchist Conference 09. The girls and boys did good!
On to No Protence. How did I feel about their stunt?
That I was being preached at by people with very fixed views, who'd had every opportunity to put those views over the two previous days, and who pissed off anyway after preaching at everyone else. Good therapy for the individuals concerned perhaps, five minutes of noteriety on the web, but it changes nothing.
Oh - and there are lots of women in the world who don't have a choice as to whether they cover their faces or not. To produce a leaflet on the lack of theorising about sexism (in the Anarchist movement and capitalist society) and not even mention religion rather suggests, sisters, you need to......... do a bit of theorising yourself.
The girls could do better.
Ulrike
Starting a debate?
08.06.2009 07:10
Tea
feminism
08.06.2009 08:03
on day one, one woman stated that there was no need for anyone to interject/intervene if sexist behaviour/comments/ were made or to intervene if there were sexist perspectives AS (present) WOMAN WERE EQUAL IN HER VIEW, (MEANING AS HUMAN BEINGS MENA AND WOMAN HJAVE EQUAL VOICE, FORCE ETC this was clearly agreed on by most present and now in retrospect I see it as an ignorant sexists comment (hey as a man I may be wrong) THE STUNT was creative in showing that many factors undermine the equality in context, communication and image selections etc. Anyway my comments are late and are unheard too - so what the f***.
our group were by and large all trying to do the role of intervening on sexism and in doing so ignoring it - we need a dedicated role for power politiks in meetings - I assert - your approval for this is not required.
Well done for this masked stunt that was meant to force in a message - I found that the masks detracted from the message and when I discussed that with someone a woman - I was initially accused on talking about the means instead of the message - fair point.
However, that masking up was in my face and I know it can lead to people doing things they know they can get away with - and so the masked up woman got away. Actually as soon as anyone spoke it was clear that all were woman - so the bit about gender being hidden was a misperception, and only threatened - led by testosterone type politics.
thanks for the thought provoking art and imposed threat and injected differant perspective into our meeting - sad it was so staged.
lesywessiewoo
intervention
08.06.2009 08:57
lancs_anarchist
people are missing the point
08.06.2009 09:59
Instead of slating these women off about what they did, how they did it, you might like to think about how strongly a person must feel about something to do something like that about it.
You are all coming across really defensive, and this is what a lot of women experience when they try to raise sexism with men. We are not saying that men are the problem, but that men need to be part of the solution.
I dont blame them for masking up. I think its a good tactic, they will no doubt face recriminations. The comments on here make it obvious that there will be even more misogynistic behavior heading their way.
As an aside the class war poster is in my opinion definitely sexist, and probably reinforces racist ideals of what beauty is. It doesnt matter whether a woman or an anarchafeminist made it. Its sexist, they should have known better.
I salut these women. I am glad they did what they did. Thank you sisters, you have made it a little easier for us all.
not there but definitely support the action
@above
08.06.2009 10:37
Erm....sorry which comments?
There is a problem with women participating in anarchist politics which needs to be constantly addressed, it was a shame that this intervention didnt happen at the beginning of the conference so we could all have focussed much more on it. In my group we had 3 women our of 11 men. Everyone participated and listened and didn't interrupt and its was brilliant. Its a shame that doesn't always happen. What I am saying is that this was an issue that was discussed regardless of that intervention and thats why it felt a bit weird to it after the event. Though I suppose it was more spectacular.
A
al
Wrong timing
08.06.2009 11:17
BigBadBakunin
Making it good from the best bits
08.06.2009 11:40
I have plenty of criticisms of Climate Camp, especially its class bias, but the above is true. Why? What is Climate Camp (what happened to the Camp for Climate ACTION?) doing right that the Anarchist Conference wasn't? And vice versa. Sad that we have to cite one scene hobbled by class discrimination against another overlapping scene's gender inequalities.
Rather than reciprocal yah-booing over our failings, how can we synthesise what we're both doing better to create a really inclusive movement?
The answer maybe can't be written on a matchbox, but I think this is the relevant question.
Stroppyoldgit
response to al
08.06.2009 11:45
Quite impressive technical skills with the video- pity the content was so manipulative and shit. " - MYSOGENY - do you not realise that women bring up sexism face to face with people all the time. Do sexists listen? - NO
"Oh - and there are lots of women in the world who don't have a choice as to whether they cover their faces or not. To produce a leaflet on the lack of theorising about sexism (in the Anarchist movement and capitalist society) and not even mention religion rather suggests, sisters, you need to......... do a bit of theorising yourself.
The girls could do better. "- MYSOGENY - there is plenty of theory behind this, its called feminism and the implication that these women need to brush up on their theory is patronising, sexist and misogynistic, and i dont think any of them were children, do you?
its obvious
Android liberation front
08.06.2009 12:12
Face it, most anarchists (especially hippies) are upper middle class hipsters who fully expect to retain their privelige even as they rail against the system that made them who they are - spoiled scions of the rich. Anarchism was a GREAT laugh while it lasted, but like most things it eventually got took over by bored posh kids looking for something to waste their inheritance on. That said best of luck with your crusade, It's certainly true that you can make a difference if you work hard enough at it and there are enough of you. I personally didn't because I was so outnumbered by poshos and lacked the confidence.
It is VERY nice to see these punks called on their shit, named and shamed as it were, although rememeber kids, it's not just sexism that's alive and well, the people I mentioned who treated me like Jeeves were female. Anyway good luck!
Android
me again
08.06.2009 12:19
"Quite impressive technical skills with the video- pity the content was so manipulative and shit."
Is fair enough. You IMMEDIATELY assumed that it was because they were women that that comment was made. I think it says alot about how open you are to the idea that not all men are sexist and who do challenge sexism EVERYDAY.
As for the other comment - it called men = boys, women = girls. After each example it noted that:
"The boys and girls did good!" so it was it that style of writing.
I am not excussing anything but if you see everything within the context that its all sexist then I think people will continue to feel defensive and attacked and guilty for something that they vigorously are opposed to.
al
mysogeny?
08.06.2009 12:24
Right. The rest of us need to sort out our issues, but there's no criticism of these women allowed. That's a rather curious attitude to take, given the factual and theoretical criticisms which have been levelled at the intervention. You can't deny that they edited women out of history from the 28 March rally. You can't deny they don't address religion (though they do mention capitalism). And the very claim that they "took the space" appears untrue, as I've heard this was all arranged with the conference organisers. I don't think it's misogynistic or sexist to point out that the message nopretence put out is in part founded on a misrepresentation of the rally in Hyde Park - I won't go as far as calling it a downright lie. And it isn't misogynistic or sexist to point out that they seem to have forgotten the 'no gods' part of 'no gods no masters'.
As for feminism, what's that mean? It's something of an umbrella term for all manner of theories, some of them progressive, some revolutionary, some outright barking. Define your terms!
Rizla
go jump
08.06.2009 12:34
i know
no dialogue no discussion
08.06.2009 13:07
darren
Not arranged
08.06.2009 13:09
Alessio
some thoughts
08.06.2009 14:12
i strongly identify as anarcho-feminist and i did used to take part in gatherings, conferences, bookfairs, meetings and actions with people who call themselves part of an anarchist movement.
i don't really see a movement existing in this country but i know others do and consider themselves part of that movement.
problems i had as a woman within the "movement" were not really based on who spoke at meetings or anywhere else. i was lucky to work with some fabulous women who, like me, were very outspoken and were listened to.
i had problems with a couple of individual men who would drink too much and then grope me (and other activist women). i got very frustrated and indeed angry about other activists, both men and women, not dealing with these guys behaviour. then i spoke to the men involved, and one of them did change his ways. the other still floats about and is bitched about behind his back more than actually confronted on his behaviour.
most of the men i have ever worked with i have found to be pretty sound anti-sexists who maybe lack a bit of confidence about speaking out when confronted by sexist behaviour but generally are quite on it.
i did find widespread homophobia, lesbophobia, and transphobia but that's another story. i also found huge ignorance of non-white cultures, lack of understanding about childcare, ignorance about sexual assault and rape survival, ignorance about disability and accessibility, and a lot of bullshit about class, as well as some horrific (to me) attitudes to mental health and addictions.
i find the "movement" very disconnected to what i perceive most of the public to care about, primarily in my area there is the issues of police racism on the streets and teenagers being stabbed to death, neither of which do i see anarchists doing any productive work on to be honest.
i think the women who did this intervention were not speaking to me or for me. their film says nothing to me about my experiences in the movement neither does their statement.
in my mind, maybe i'm wrong, but i imagine this group as a group of white able-bodied women who are focussing on perceived sexism to the exclusion of other issues. that they did it in masks and did not allow anyone to discuss issues with them worries me.
that they did it at a conference where people were critiquing, or examining, the movement and ways it could change, seems inappropriate. if they had staged an intervention at an EarthFirst! gathering, a bookfair, or some other event with a history of sexism it would have made more sense at least to me. this conference was a first, there is no history attached to it, and perhaps they could have tried to take part and raise the issues first. then, if they weren't listened to, it would seem the time for such interventions, not before.
i still don't really know what they hope to happen, or what they are critiquing, other than that men talk too much and don't listen enough. i am glad that we are now discussing sexism, that is an achievement in my mind, but i think the discussion is not on the real issues of sexism and that many are feeling defensive understandably. i suppose its always good to shake things up a bit, isn't it? they certainly seem to have done that.
i wonder what the history is of this intervention, what communications happened between these women and the organisers in the last few months? that would help my understanding.
to be honest i do question their motivations and their choice of target. with all that is going on in the world was a room full of anarcho's the biggest priority in the fight for feminism? to me the answer is no, but that's perhaps because i don't take this so-called "movement" as seriously as others. or seriously at all.
ann archa-feminist
some thoughts
08.06.2009 14:15
i strongly identify as anarcho-feminist and i did used to take part in gatherings, conferences, bookfairs, meetings and actions with people who call themselves part of an anarchist movement.
i don't really see a movement existing in this country but i know others do and consider themselves part of that movement.
problems i had as a woman within the "movement" were not really based on who spoke at meetings or anywhere else. i was lucky to work with some fabulous women who, like me, were very outspoken and were listened to.
i had problems with a couple of individual men who would drink too much and then grope me (and other activist women). i got very frustrated and indeed angry about other activists, both men and women, not dealing with these guys behaviour. then i spoke to the men involved, and one of them did change his ways. the other still floats about and is bitched about behind his back more than actually confronted on his behaviour.
most of the men i have ever worked with i have found to be pretty sound anti-sexists who maybe lack a bit of confidence about speaking out when confronted by sexist behaviour but generally are quite on it.
i did find widespread homophobia, lesbophobia, and transphobia but that's another story. i also found huge ignorance of non-white cultures, lack of understanding about childcare, ignorance about sexual assault and rape survival, ignorance about disability and accessibility, and a lot of bullshit about class, as well as some horrific (to me) attitudes to mental health and addictions.
i find the "movement" very disconnected to what i perceive most of the public to care about, primarily in my area there is the issues of police racism on the streets and teenagers being stabbed to death, neither of which do i see anarchists doing any productive work on to be honest.
i think the women who did this intervention were not speaking to me or for me. their film says nothing to me about my experiences in the movement neither does their statement.
in my mind, maybe i'm wrong, but i imagine this group as a group of white able-bodied women who are focussing on perceived sexism to the exclusion of other issues. that they did it in masks and did not allow anyone to discuss issues with them worries me.
that they did it at a conference where people were critiquing, or examining, the movement and ways it could change, seems inappropriate. if they had staged an intervention at an EarthFirst! gathering, a bookfair, or some other event with a history of sexism it would have made more sense at least to me. this conference was a first, there is no history attached to it, and perhaps they could have tried to take part and raise the issues first. then, if they weren't listened to, it would seem the time for such interventions, not before.
i still don't really know what they hope to happen, or what they are critiquing, other than that men talk too much and don't listen enough. i am glad that we are now discussing sexism, that is an achievement in my mind, but i think the discussion is not on the real issues of sexism and that many are feeling defensive understandably. i suppose its always good to shake things up a bit, isn't it? they certainly seem to have done that.
i wonder what the history is of this intervention, what communications happened between these women and the organisers in the last few months? that would help my understanding.
to be honest i do question their motivations and their choice of target. with all that is going on in the world was a room full of anarcho's the biggest priority in the fight for feminism? to me the answer is no, but that's perhaps because i don't take this so-called "movement" as seriously as others. or seriously at all.
ann archa-feminist
contacts/discussions with anarcha-fem group
08.06.2009 14:52
And that was it! No mention of the leaflet graphic, no critique, no sense that we got it all wrong. If the text was available before the conference then every group would have discussed it or aleast read it. But it was done AFTER the conference which was a shame.
one of the organisers
one of the organisers
Stop! Listen! Read! Think! ...before you spew.
08.06.2009 15:38
I would say then that the timing of this intervention was just right. It should have been regarded as an opportunity to start educating ourselves and addressing these issues together as a movement.
Being anti-sexist means listening to women's voices. These women are saying that they have experienced sexism in the movement. That means it doesn't matter whether or not you have personally experienced it... your opinion on whether or not it exists is irrelevant to these women's (and all those women in the room who recognised and applauded their examples) experiences of sexism.
Being anti-sexist means actively fighting sexism. These women have provided us with concrete examples (i.e. illustrations that represent more general problems) that typify the sort of ways in which they experience sexism within the movement i.e. the sorts of things that we need to go about changing. Sexism is usually seen as a women's problem and it is usually expected that women educate men as to how to go about being anti-sexist. These women have provided us with numerous educational resources on the blog to begin educating ourselves.
So start by first listening to what these women had to say without discrediting them from the outset. Then take some time to think about the message without quibbling over the use of specific footage. Then read carefully the materials which they have taken the time to source and compile. Only after you've done these things are you in a legitimate position to think about posting your opinions on sexism in the movement for everyone else to read.
appreciative
fuckin hell
08.06.2009 15:40
We'll have brought down the government by oh, perhaps as soon as 3009 at this rate!
(a)
Typical Reactions!
08.06.2009 16:08
Hera lasses
Well done anarchafeminists!
08.06.2009 17:18
"Wow - that's interesting & challenging - maybe I should think about and learn from that."
or
a) That's not fair, you misrepresented this detail! (rather than recognising the issue being raised)
b) Why did you cover up you wimps? Why did you not stay & talk? (they had good reason to expect anger - those benefitting from systems of privilege don't like it when they're challenged)
c) Why didn't you talk about oppression by religion? (what, to a room full of anarchists? Preaching to the converted maybe?)
d) Don't you have something more important to do? (Why assume that these wimmin were not @ EDO on MayDay, G20, Gaza riots, etc?)
If you can't deal with being slightly challenged in your male privilege, than what are you doing calling yourself an anarchist?
mika
Well done for fighting the state & patriarchy
08.06.2009 17:37
To all the anarcho-patriarchs flaming the intervention:
Did you not notice that several voices of the masked wimmin were quivering as they spoke? Maybe wonder why they were afraid of repercussions and judgement from their fellow anarchists? Wimmin speaking out within the movement have faced a history of repression & abuse. The anarchafeminists did not know how people in the room would react - the first responses were negative jeers.
And now look how defensively & aggressively many of the posters have been here.
No compromise to sexist bullshit!
Supporter of anarchafeminists
not clever
08.06.2009 17:47
dont know why people clapped for these fucking muppets.
not funny
theres only so much sexism an anarchist can take
08.06.2009 17:57
wish i was there
Indy London - really positive responses
08.06.2009 18:00
interested to note
@ not clever
08.06.2009 18:14
You are the one slagging women off.
whose the muppet
get this
08.06.2009 18:34
hospitality is lacking in some circles - grudge holders, arrogant types - we were slow with the welcome.
You initiated and did it well - you sparked a few thoughts/
man
too scary for you?
08.06.2009 19:04
And yes those of us who fight for equality and justice for women are also capable and do fight for many other causes of injustice (multi tasking –we’re good at it remember…).
How funny that you’re missing the point (yet again), no one is slagging off any individuals-just equating sexism in society with sexism in the anarchist movement- (women are brainwashed with ‘woman hating’ as the norm too).
And yes….(derrrr)… anarchist men do oppress us too (no gods, no masters?) and instead of being dismissive and ridiculous in your reactions- could you not simply address that fact?...
Or is that too radical an approach?
Leigh
wasn't there but
08.06.2009 22:36
this debate needs to take place, the fact that people felt the need to take this action is enough for everyone, male or female, to think about their own behaviour and how this problem can be remedied
like it or not, that's anarchism
riotact
Homepage:
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com
Way to go, sisters!!
09.06.2009 00:34
To all the amazing people that were involved in this: an anarchafeminist action at an anarchist conference? Pure genius! WIsh I was there to cheer you all on.
For a long time I’ve experienced sexism within the anarchist movement, it disapointed me loads and went against everything that I thought anarchism stood for. It almost put me off being an anarchist altogether. This was until I met other anarchist women, we got chatting, and found out we felt the same way. As my confidence as an anarchist rose, and my feminism took hold, my disapointment turned to defiance: how can you call yourselves anarchists and be so blatently sexist?! Lo and behold: an anarcha-feminist was born!
Ignore the defensive mysogyny of certain men who comment on internet forums, they are soo yesterday. I love the way that they are so quick to point out things like “aha but the leaflet/conference/event was designed by a woman!! What do you have to say about that you feminist freaks?!” [or something like this]. Err…women can be sexist too, haven’t you heard? And [shock horror] feminism does not equate to man-hating. REAL men are feminists!
These ‘anarchists’ (both men and women commentating negatively on this aciton) seem to be reciting out-dated [and downright bollocks] criticisms of feminism, just like the mainstream. Err, way radical guys. It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so fucking disgusting.
This ‘no pretence’ action should be applauded, supported, listened to and the issues brought up be discussed seriously as a massive problem within our scene, and taken as a big step towards the modern anarchist movement being truly ‘anarchist’, and by that I also mean ‘feminist’.
Way to go, sisters!!
A person
the statement that was read out/ distributed
09.06.2009 00:42
We have taken this space and projected this short film to show how we see sexism in 'the movement' and sexism in capitalist society. We have covered our faces in the same way we might do against the state and its agents - inspired by the tradition of our militant sisters who took back male-dominated stages, and political spaces.
We expect hostility, intimidation and greater surveillance after our action. Covering up makes it easier to communicate. And we know that our message is much bigger than the messenger herself.
The following text is our response to the four thems of the conference.
MOVEMENT or why we aren't one
No matter how much we aspire to be 'self-critical' there is a clear lack of theorising and concrete action around sexism, homophobia and racism in the anarchist movement. We do not feel that the content and structure of the conference deal with gender and we're tired of asking for space - we're taking it ourselves.
You want to talk about history? Let's stop pretending that feminism is a short blip in the history of political struggles. The feminism you know may be the one that has been dominated by white middle-class liberal politics - NOT the struggles and pockets of revolutionary resistance missing from our political pamphlets and 'independent' media. The feminism of Comandanta Yolanda, of bell hooks, of Anzaldua, of Mbuya Nehanda, of Angela Davis, of Rote Zora, of Mujeres Libres...
CLASS or is anybody out there?
We are all oppressed by the class system, but there is nobody 'out there' who isn't also oppressed by white supremacy, imperialism, heterosexism, patriarchy, ableism, ageism...Pretending these systems don't exist or can be subsumed into capitalist oppression, doesn't deal with the problem, it just silences those people most oppressed by them, and allows for the continuing domination of these systems over our lives.
We are tired of being told that anarchists don't need to be feminists, because 'anarchism has feminism covered.' This is just a convenient way of forgetting the reality of gender oppression, and so ignoring the specifics of the struggle against it.
RESISTANCE or are we futile?
If the anarchist movement doesn't recognize the power structures it reproduces, its resistance will be futile. For as well as fighting sexism 'out there' we must fight sexism 'in here' and stop pretending that oppressive systems disappear at the door of the squat or the social centre. Only a movement that understands and fights its own contradictions can provide fertile ground for real and effective resistance.
Ask yourselves this - do you believe sexism exists within the movement? When a woman comrade says she's experienced sexual abuse or assault from a male comrade - what do you think? That it's an individual or isolated case? Or that it can happen - and disproportonately to women - because there is a system that allows it to develop and gives it life? Can we honestly say that our own autonomous spaces do not play a part in upholding this system?
Ask yourselves this - why do fewer women speak in meetings? Because they think less? Waht is the gender of the factory worker? Why do more women do the washing up and run creches at meetings/events? What is the gender of the carer at home?
Now tell us if you believe sexism exists: tell us why you think men rape; why more women are battered than men; why more women are used by the state to do free and unwaged work. Tell us - are you a feminist?
We believe that in the anarchist movement, the strongest evidence of sexism lies in the choice we're told to make between 'unity' and what-they-call 'separatism', between fighting the state and fighting sexism. Fuck that! We refuse to be seen as stereotypes of 'feminists' you can consume - like fucking merchandise in the capitalist workplace.
IDEAS INTO REALITY and what's in between?
There will be no future for the anarchist movement if it doesn't also identify as an anarcha-feminist movement. Anarcha-feminist organisational structures must exist within the movement to make anarcha-feminism an integral part of it. And you don't need to identify as a woman to be an anarcha-feminist - every anarchist should be able to participate in the struggle against sexism.
The state's incursion into our private lives and the relationship between sexuality and productivity from which it profits affects people of all genders. The gender binary system violently allocates us roles on the basis of our anatomy. A refusal to accept even these basic precepts will be a great hindrance to our movement.
You ask 'Can we find common cause despite our differences?'. We will only find common cause if we recognize that our differences are structured by numerous oppressive systems, and together fight to end each of these systems, wherever we find them.
Our feminisms must be plural, they must be anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic. Our inspiration comes from the actions of feminists who have helped self-identified women reach revolutionary consciousness.
Our feminisms must be revolutionary.
Final word
You can pretend we didn't come here, pretend nothing was said.
You can purposefully misunderstand us.
Or you can ask yourselves why we came, what we meant, and whether we'll come back again.
anarcha-feminist
e-mail:
nopretence@riseup.net
Don't Mention Religion.........
09.06.2009 06:12
One of the things that holds us all back (in terms of our sexuality, gender, and our aspirations) is religion. No Pretence don't mention the subject once.
Worse, on their blog, a supporter, Tina, warns against critiquing one of the most restrictive religions in its approach towards women - Islam. Some feminist!
Read this and weep:
Secular World
Just mention Islam
09.06.2009 06:35
A) The only religion that is patriarchal
or
B) The only religion that the main stream media and politicians like to bash?
reproducing ruling class values
Islam
09.06.2009 07:42
Niccolo
@ secular world
09.06.2009 08:43
fed up of bigots
'lalalalalalala'
09.06.2009 08:49
Religion and sexism-get it-is a complex issue...so if you can’t grasp basic concepts like sexism, why complicate matters for yourselves?
L
Space Hijackers - women in the movement
09.06.2009 09:07
Space Hijackers 1
Space Hijackers 2
Nutz?
Non-sexism?
09.06.2009 09:23
B
your point is?
09.06.2009 09:42
L
to B (or not to b)
09.06.2009 09:59
Ok lets not call it ‘feminism’…that’s too threatening…and why don’t we start to talk about men and their feelings as this discussion is distracting us from what’s really important….white middle class men- because they never get any attention…
You're right to be scared B.....
Leigh
How DARE they?
09.06.2009 10:56
One of the things that holds us all back.....is religion. No Pretence don't mention the subject once."
And they didn't mention militarism, the arms trade, the struggle in Chiapas, the situation in North Korea, global warming, car culture, Tescos, the BNP, animal rights or whether you can trust "fair trade" food labels. I mean they did an intervention and short film lasting a whole 5 minutes or so and dished out 2 sides of A4. How dare they not present an analysis of these important topics!
Stroppyoldgit
stroppyoldgit
09.06.2009 12:13
Rizla
Fabulous!
09.06.2009 15:31
Charlie Little
Homepage:
http://www.charlielittle.wordpress.com
RBS
09.06.2009 17:43
Wasn't that RBS at G20? And if so wasn't a 17yo woman arrested inside for smashing stuff up?
zzzzz
frustration!
09.06.2009 18:04
Is that too hard to comprehend??
Leigh
symbols?
09.06.2009 21:22
an anarchist not from here
@ anarchist not from here
09.06.2009 23:33
youre so wrong its funny in a sick way
@leigh
10.06.2009 05:50
"do you really not get it yet? Why are you picking over every detail of this video? It's meant to be symbolic not representative of every aspect of every issue in the world nor accurate to the millionth degree about who spoke when and who was where...It just reflects general patterns of gender bias and oppression within the state in comparison to the anarchist movement .
Is that too hard to comprehend??"
The trouble with the video (and for that matter the leaflet) is that it refers explicitly through images to a number of events. When it's wrong or misleading it is right to pick that out.
Al Key
'avoidance'
10.06.2009 07:48
Leigh
just my idea
10.06.2009 07:49
And you were the only people at the conference pushing their
agenda, instead of opening a debate. I think woman's struggle is majorly important, I also think creating a strong anarchist movement is majorly important It would have been the same if I had gotten up at the end of the conference, masked my face and shouted: the building of the anarchist movement is for me the most important issue. I did not do this because I respected the people at the conference; I think you did more wrong than good with this action, no woman I spoke to felt that they experienced any oppression during the conference. It was nothing more than agenda pushing,and even now days later, I still feel very bad about this experience. There was some hope, and now it's gone again.
Love and rage,
Maartje;
maartje
e-mail:
maartjewils@yahoo.com
Homepage:
http://anarchyisorder.org
@ Maartje
10.06.2009 08:11
Maz
@maz
10.06.2009 08:41
I don't want to go into a discussion 'bout women in the movement, I do think there is a problem that has to be adressed. And I'm definetly not protecting anybody. I have my share of stories too, abuse in the movement (and in my personal life), loud mouthed men at meetings,... I've long been active as an anarchafeminist, and I can completely relate to what these girls are feeling. So yes I think they are right. BUT I also think anarcho-syndicalists have a good point, I also think ethnic minorities are oppressed, I think people that fight for animal rights have an issue... And yes, for me, anarchafeminism is the most important issue too. BUT : because our movement is so devided we are so weak , and finally, I had the feeling that after this weekend we had found a way to work towards more unity. I felt that everyone attending this meeting really made an effort to communicate about every topic, even women's struggle, in a respectfull manner. Listening, using consensus,learning from eachother... Therefore I feel that the action was out of place at this conference, and leaving me dissapointed again...
Love,
maartje.
maartje
What's there to credit?
10.06.2009 08:50
If you can't see what's wrong with this, I really don't know what you're doing in the movement.
There was the chance for people from No Pretence to make their point during the conference. The internal evidence of their statement suggests they didn't take it. Instead, they invaded the conference and told everyone what wankers the organisers were for the way they'd lumped gender in with racism. They refused to engage with people who wanted to talk to them and walked away. I hope I need not point out this is neither comradely nor democratic.
No Pretence are right that there is a problem with sexism in the movement. They are right that it needs to be addressed. But they are wrong that storming into a room and haranguing the people inside it is a good way to get their point across.
Yes, this is a serious problem and one which needs sober discussion to solve. There was an opportunity for this which No Pretence did not take. Why should any organisation which behaved that way - no matter their membership - should be supported when they squander such a chance and show contempt for the very people they need to act to improve matters?
Al Key
Al Key
10.06.2009 09:12
You Sound like Paul Hills, the Director of ITT - EDO.
When mere words, petitions or letter writing campaigns won't solve the problem, then there is surely a case for Direct Action?
If the participants felt that the issue of gender wasn't being adequately addressed, then it seems fair enough for them to seek to highlight it in other ways. Even if that makes you personally feel uneasy.
Perhaps you should try a spot of reflection and see what it was about the intervention that makes you feel so uncomfortable. Thats a better option than acting like Paul Hills.
Anarchist Man
@ Maartje ok
10.06.2009 09:13
Maz
@ Al Key
10.06.2009 09:44
Ok Al key, thanks for your total over statement ‘I really don't know what you're doing in the movement’ – one way of dealing with someone you don’t agree with…ha ha. You guys pretty much sum up why this action happened…..
Do you think this has come out of the blue? Do you not think many of these women haven’t tried conventional means of communicating and basically been ignored, talked over, dismissed?? If you’re a white educated bloke everybody will listen to you-you have no concept of being ignored….belittled what ever. And so many of you are judging this purely from that perspective…This feeling of alienation has spawned many actions. Would you really be discussing this if a group of women held a discussion within a conference? I've been around anarchist events for years and anarchist men aren't interested...That's the reality of the continual offensive behaviour women in the movement face.
Leigh
@ Al Key
10.06.2009 09:45
Ok Al key, thanks for your total over statement ‘I really don't know what you're doing in the movement’ – one way of dealing with someone you don’t agree with…ha ha. You guys pretty much sum up why this action happened…..
Do you think this has come out of the blue? Do you not think many of these women haven’t tried conventional means of communicating and basically been ignored, talked over, dismissed?? If you’re a white educated bloke everybody will listen to you-you have no concept of being ignored….belittled what ever. And so many of you are judging this purely from that perspective…This feeling of alienation has spawned many actions. Would you really be discussing this if a group of women held a discussion within a conference? I've been around anarchist events for years and anarchist men aren't interested...That's the reality of the continual offensive behaviour women in the movement face.
Leigh
what your problem?
10.06.2009 09:54
Do you think this has come out of the blue? Do you not think many of these women haven’t tried conventional means of communicating and basically been ignored, talked over, dismissed?? If you’re a white educated bloke everybody will listen to you-you have no concept of being ignored…. You are judging this purely from that perspective…If these women had used conventional means do you think we’d be discussing it here? Iv been around anarchist events for years and generally anarchist men are not interested in womens issues. Feelings of alienation have spawned many actions in all sorts of circumstances…these actions are not born out of nothing. Face up to yourselves and start daring to hear what others have to say.
Leigh
@ Anarchist Man
10.06.2009 09:59
Al Key
@ Al key
10.06.2009 10:11
Leigh
What all male protest?
10.06.2009 10:30
It's a figment of your imagination, and an insult to the women involved.
Why should active resistance be exclusively male? Is militancy masculine?
this woman riots
Al Key
10.06.2009 10:42
Thanks for that. Its another way of not dealing with the substance of the issue.
"Look, it's really very simple.Interventions are best made when they can have some impact on the matter at hand. There were more than 200 anarchists at the conference, some of them even opposed to sexism."
Well, it seems to me, as someone who couldn't attend the conference, that this is one of the main legacies of the conference. That it HAS had some impact on the matter at hand.
"Given the way the statement's written - its internal evidence - it's clear it was not written after all the discussion at the conference. It must therefore have been written beforehand. If it was written beforehand, then it was written before there was a chance for anything productive (or otherwise) to come out of the conference. Which undermines your claim about the adequate discussion of gender or sexism."
The 4 themes of the conference were:
- Movement or why we aren't one
- Resistance or are we futile?
- Class or is anybody out there?
- Ideas into reality and what's in between?
No mention of gender in the descriptions either. So I think it fair enough that a group decided that the issue needed more prominence.
"Frankly, any solution to the wider issue of sexism in the movement is going to have to be based on mere words, unless you're suggesting that we do unto sexists what Smash Edo have done unto the Edo factory. "
I'd say that the solution is in raised awareness of the issue, a willingness to confront sexism when it is seen, and thinking about how the movement can be truly inclusive. A lot of the words from a significant number of commenteers are not dealing with the issue at all. Quite a few, like yourself appear to be trying to undermine the message by criticising the way in which the intervention was made.
I am continually shocked by the sexism in any thread on Indymedia which dares to stray into the issue of sexism and feminism. I doubt words are going to be enough.
Anarchist Man
brilliant
10.06.2009 13:00
dont like conferences
Insults and other distractions
10.06.2009 23:03
It's unhelpful when people compare others to arms dealers - I think calling 'Anarchist Man' an arse is, in that context, rather mild.
I always thought that in the anarchist movement we always tried to resolve differences through discussion and parity of esteem. There's little common courtesy, let alone respect, shown to people when a small grouping which has not bothered engaging in a conference like last weekend's stages a stunt like that. Nine or ten times the number of women involved in the action took part in the conference - was their contribution to the discussion less valuable than that of No Pretence? Perhaps in future people should save their money, avoid debate, and simply invade the final plenary session to get their points across before running off down the pub or wherever.
You claim that 'these women' have tried conventional means of communication and been ignored.Wouldn't the most conventional means of raising concerns about the conference - which after all was the object of their ire - have been to engage with it? Yet, as I have pointed out, it is plain from their statement that it was written before the conference. It is clear that there was no part taken in the discussions as they would have written it rather differently.
I agree with you that there has been a general lack of interest among anarchist men in women's issues. But I don't think sexism is entirely a women's issue; just as there is no Irish Question but an English one. If you think it is, then nothing will happen as the language in which you pose the questions won't affect the people it should.
As for activists and activism, I think that's among the biggest banes of the anarchist movement, creating as it does an informal hierarchy of people who seek to organise the troops around their own agendas, tactics, techniques and procedures of action. How can any normal person, of either sex, get involved in a movement apparently opposed to hierarchies and elitism which - purposely or no - excludes most ordinary people through an actually existing hierarchy of language and 'expertise'?
Anarchist Man:
Under 'Movement or why we aren't one' was this: What constitutes our movement, our ideas, our own involvement, our relations with others, the limitations? – A self critical look at what anarchist, anarchism and anarchy means and why we choose to be associated with these terms and history.
I would have thought that most people would think about sexism, racism and homophobia under 'our relations with others' Equally, under 'Resistance or is it futile' was 'what have you been involved in that was anything but [effective]', where experiences of sexism within the movement could be brought up.
So, not only were you not at the conference, it's clear you've been too busy to look at the conference website.
I have said above that there is a problem with sexism in the movement; I've not shyed away from it; but what we laughingly refer to as 'the movement' is a work continually in progress. People who enter the movement do so accompanied by baggage from their past. It takes time to abandon the negative aspects of socialisation in a capitalist society, and as people have 'joined' at different times, some people will always have some undesirable views. I agree more ought to be done to combat sexism and other prejudices, I recognise this starts at home, with the internal self-examination and re-education. But I can't see the No Pretence action furthering the fight against sexism, in the same way I can't see the UAF struggle against the BNP doing any good for anti-fascism.
I'm sorry if you both think I've been out of order. As far as I'm concerned, if criticism of an action - and, as I've tried to make clear, not the issue - is out of order, there's even more wrong with British anarchism than I thought.
Al Key
Al Key
11.06.2009 06:37
I think you'll find I compared your reaction to the intervention to Paul Hill's reaction to smash EDO. He has no investment in hearing what their problems with his baby killing products are - so he focusses on the actions.
Theres a not dissimilar reaction in this report:
"Six people dressed in black block attire walked in, explained they were ‘taking over’ and turned off the lights, an intentionally intimidating experience for everyone. A projector was set up, drum and bass kicked in and it was explained to us that this was a group of anarcho-feminists trying to raise awareness of sexism within the movement. Their aggressive and intimidating behaviour certainly got them more attention than a simple presentation would have done, but unfortunately some of the language they used made it seem like an attack on the conference specifically and it wasn’t until a discussion in the pub later that many of us realised it was a comment on the movement as a whole."
Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 seems to be a possibility based on that reaction! And yet in reality it was no different to the kind of office occupation that gets reported on Indymedia frequently.
Al Key:
"Under 'Movement or why we aren't one' was this: What constitutes our movement, our ideas, our own involvement, our relations with others, the limitations? – A self critical look at what anarchist, anarchism and anarchy means and why we choose to be associated with these terms and history.
I would have thought that most people would think about sexism, racism and homophobia under 'our relations with others' Equally, under 'Resistance or is it futile' was 'what have you been involved in that was anything but [effective]', where experiences of sexism within the movement could be brought up.
So, not only were you not at the conference, it's clear you've been too busy to look at the conference website. "
No, I think you've managed to confirm what I said - that there wasn't a space to discuss sexism in the movement, except as a side issue.'Our relations with others' is not the same as 'Our relations with each other'! Last Hours says that there were about 300 people at the conference and that 6 people staged the intervention. You say that "Nine or ten times the number of women involved in the action took part in the conference" so apparently women made up about 20% of attendees. Yet another indication that it would have been good to set aside time for specific discussion of why women are under represented in the movement.
Let me remind you what it was you said that I compared to Paul Hills reaction:
"Why should any organisation which behaved that way - no matter their membership - should be supported when they squander such a chance and show contempt for the very people they need to act to improve matters? "
You think women should gracefully accept scraps from the masters table? Had they done so, the issue would have been buried - is my guess.
The action provides room for thought - so to does the reaction to it.
Anarchist Man
Comparisons
11.06.2009 17:08
That's a pedant point for you for your nitpicking evasion.
The group I was in felt that 'our relations with others' included issues and difficulties in dealing with others, including such topics as sexism. It was 'our relations' with other people, both within and without 'the movement'. Don't you think that how anarchists deal with each other ought to be the same as how anarchists deal with non-anarchists? I don't believe in a two-tier system; you seem to.
Numbers at the conference: on the morning the conference started I was told, by one of the organisers, that about 220 people had registered. I don't know where Last Hours got their figures. Some new people turned up on the Sunday, but other people had only come for the Saturday. It's possible 300 passed through, but of the people who'd registered about 1/3 were women.
Do I think women should gracefully accept scraps from the masters table? I don't think that's the way the conference was experienced by most of the women there - certainly the women in my group seemed to find it a very positive event.
Al Key
FANTASTIC COOL HURRAY!
12.06.2009 09:55
In total solidarity!
Emma G
veils masks and faces
12.06.2009 16:34
The image we used in the anarchist conference logo has been targeted by the film shown as part of the women’s intervention at the end of the conference, for being a poor attempt at ‘gender neutral’ (or so I understand), and previously on this forum, as an exploitative use of a female image on part of a male dominated group to attract women to ‘their’ event (again my interpretation of the criticism).
That image was not genderblurred. It was intended to come across as a woman, with the lack of facial features representing the questioning of the anarchist movement that was the purpose and motivation of the conference. The image on the logo is probably one the few things we didn’t argue about while organising that event … there was never a question of a man being the face (or non-face) of the conference, instead of a woman.
I don’t mean to patronise any of the women involved in the action by saying this: to me, that was a misunderstanding, but a lucky one if it fuelled the making of that film, the writing of that text, the happening of that action that I and many others have found personally and politically so inspiring.
We all need to think about how we use images in our literature and publicity. Images of women, and non-white, non-western people (apologies to anyone who finds the negative problematic but I have huge issues with the phrase ‘people of colour’ and I’d be happy to open a dialogue about that with anyone who’s interested) are both under-used and mis-used in anarchist agitprop. As they are in mainstream media, but we’re trying to do things differently aren’t we, so that’s a poor excuse. The use of almost any image can be appropriate and affirming, or exploitative and oppressive: it’s not just down to good intentions, but also about being honest and critical of those intentions, and developing an awareness of how the image may be ‘read’ by others (all sorts of others, not just our mates).
On the topic of faces, and the covering of … I am fascinated by the analogy made by a few people in response to the women’s intervention, and left unchallenged by many more, between the women’s choice to mask up, and muslim women wearing the veil, by choice or otherwise. Here we go again, with muslim women who wear the veil being used as a political football, this time by anarchist men in a last ditch attempt to undermine a group of women who have successfully challenged them. This cunning analogy could be just as easily made by the corporate media against women masking up at any demonstration, to undermine their methods and the motivation of their actions (yours too, assuming you were there with them): in fact, they probably will next time, now that some enlightened anarchist males have come up with the idea. Or do you think the media wouldn't go down that route, if women masked up only as part of mixed-gender actions - presumably 'masterminded' by men, which is generally the assumption the media try to plant in people’s heads? So as long as women's choice to cover their faces on an action is sanctioned by the presence of men, then you wouldn’t see it as retrograde? And how retrograde is THAT?
Another way of looking at this attempt to pitch one class of women against another is that, in an embryonic form, this is divide and rule, folks … so those of you doing it, now have an insight into the minds of those who practice this tactic regularly and on a mass scale, to oppress us all. Hopefully you’ll use this insight as ammunition in your fight against the stystem, rather than use the anarchist movement as a twisted playing field of all the destructive dynamics we’re not brave enough to challenge. And just as well we don’t have any power as a movement yet, while we’re working out the finer strategic points …
Of all of you who are trying to undermine the validity of the women’s black bloc intervention, particularly those who are criticising their choice to mask up … how many have signed their own posts? How many have used some sort of codename? (these are not entirely rethorical questions, I can’t be bothered to go back and count because some of that stuff I really don’t want to have to read again) And are you using your pseudonym as a mask – protecting your identity after taking a radical stance in an environment that you perceive as potentially hostile – or as a veil – it’s the culture of anarchist discussion boards, we all use pseudonyms? Or is your anarchist codename a political statement? And would that be a mask or a veil? A veil, as I see it. Many muslim women wear the veil as a political statement, a stance against islamophobia, as well as a religious practice.
I know I know. Maybe you’re still trying to get your head around the fact that anarchist women are making valid, effective political statements independently of (in opposition to!!) anarchist men, and here I am going on about people oppressed by organised religion, female at that, being willing and able to make their own, valid, effective political statements. Life is fucking confusing. Politics too. For all of us. No black and white. Let’s get on with it.
marinella
The action was needed
13.06.2009 15:51
Kazzy
Say it sisters!
18.06.2009 18:54
I am glad somebody has finally found something wrong here.
All women in all parts of the world should be equal. Rights to live and breath without male dominance.
Jadea Fin
e-mail:
jfwakeham@googlemail.com