Thursday,
October 31 2002 @ 09:26 AM PST Contributed by: Admin Views:
1318
Submitted by Gerald:
Just Ask a Woman
By
Traci Harris
Fighting sexism has come a long
way baby. We've come from the early days of the
suffragettes demanding the vote, to the women of the
sixties and seventies taking to the streets
demanding
their freedom, and now to men
themselves throwing down the gloves and leading the
anti-sexist fight. Today, when we think of sexism within
progressive and radical activist communities, we usually
think of it as a problem of the "olden days." We all
know that during the beginning stages of the feminist
movement in the sixties, women having their own spaces
and voices threatened men. They used to ridicule and
humiliate them every time a woman stood up for herself
or her sisters. But that blatant sexism just isn't a
problem today is it? Today we have men on our side, we
have "ex-Manarchists" working on anti-sexist behavior
and how to fight masculine authority, and we have men
establishing rules for meetings and conferences that
divert the sexist jackass that plagues our society.
Halleluiah! We have men to command the battle against
sexism!
Lately, there is a trend in just about
every radical paper and journal, lead primarily by men,
to "out" the "Manarchist." In "Deep Inside the Mind Of a
Manarchist part one" by Kooky, a self-proclaimed
ex-manarchist defines what a "Manarchist" is and shows
us how to recognize the ugly monster that demands the
end of all authoritarian rule yet tyrannizes women.
Additionally he gives his thoughts on how to combat this
hypocritical fiend. There are other works that similarly
are designed to end male dominance like "Working
Together for Change" by Bill Moyers, and "Tools for
White Guys who are Working for Social Change and other
People Socialized in a Society Based on Domination" by
Chris Crass. How wonderful that there are these clever
pieces written about sexism by men, distributed by men
and all male groups meeting to discuss how to be on our
side. What is so nice about these particular articles
and assemblies, is that they actually tell other men how
not to act like a sexist. They provide a sort of "12
step" program that once completed, means that they are
no longer "Manarchist" pigs! These men guide all of us
ignorant sheep down the path of anti-sexism.
Gone are the days when activist men screamed
obscenities at women who fought for even a tiny little
space free from sexism. I get things sent to me
frequently about men writing open letters to other men
about how to conduct themselves at meetings, rules for
men to follow in organizations so as to not exclude
women, or critiques of protests or workshops where men
"took over." With all of this information floating about
both in cyberspace and print, most of which is being
written and distributed by men, we as women sure do have
a lot to be thankful for. Today we can go to a protest
or a workshop or a political conference and not worry
about sexism, right? If only that were true!
I
was at a protest recently for May Day, attended by many
men from organizations claiming to work on the
"Manarchist" problem. Some of these men had even written
documents similar to the ones I mentioned above. I am
sure if asked, most of them would claim to be
anti-sexist, an "Ex-Manarchist" or maybe even a
Feminist. Yet as the protest got under way, it was very
clear that sexism was raising its ugly head- and not
just by the pigs.
The protest, for what I am
sure seemed like good reasons to the organizers, had a
distinct lack of strategy in the type of actions that
would take place. For example, the protest must have
marched up and down the same four-block area for at
least 3 hours. The stops that took place along this
commercial area seemed virtually accidental and
consisted of folks engaging in actions that are
characteristic of a protest: chanting, cheering,
dancing, street theater, etc.
As the evening
wore on, other actions emerged from the severe lack of
focus. I recall one man from the protest strutting into
the Gap only to be chased out by the pigs brandishing
their pepper spray. On another occasion a male protester
swaggered into the Borders bookstore and was directed
forcefully to the exit by the pigs once again. I saw men
excitedly challenging the pigs to arrest them by using
what I call the "frat boy" technique. You know, when a
guy challenges another guy to a fight by getting in his
face, pointing his finger at him, calling him some sort
of name. What usually results is a showdown of the
challenged (pig in this case) who refuses to respond
(but stares intimidating in his own manly kind of way)
versus the puffed up challenger who usually struts off
saying something like "Yeah, that's what I thought".
Honestly, with the excessive amount of chest puffing I
saw that evening, I thought I was at a cockfight, not a
protest. Well, I guess when I look at it, I was.
A great article called "Stick it to the
Manarchy" by The Rock Bloc enlightened us on what
"manarchist" behavior is. They explain "manarchism" by
sharing personal accounts of what they had experienced
at mass actions, conferences, and within their own
regular organizing. This article really put into
perspective the sexist crap that activist women face
today in protest situations as well as other activist
circles. You know, stuff like men yelling "If you aren't
willing to take a Billy club to the head you can't march
with us!" I am not a pacifist and I find that most of my
feminist comrades aren't either, but really, who ever
wants to take a beating to the head? Reading that
article made me realize that my own recent protest
experience was in no way unique. I realized that the
type of ill-planned activism that I described, which
resulted in actions that can only be described as
raucous, wasn't tactical. Rather it was a result of
radical male machismo. Furthermore, I realized that this
type of " uncompromising radical male" behavior is not
exclusive to protests. But I am sure we all realize this
by now. What I do find interesting, is the frequency
that I (and other female activists) experience this
display of male-agro penis power in present-day activist
communities.
Show me a woman who hasn't felt
under-represented at a conference by the exceeding
amount of white guys that show up to those things. Show
me a woman who hasn't felt as if her ideas were less
important that a man's at a workshop on gender. Show me
a woman who hasn't felt as if she was talked over at a
conference. Show me a woman who has not been "rescued"
by a man who thought she needed rescuing during a
political discussion.
So why do we keep
experiencing this in our day-to-day activism? Just about
every activist or political organization claims to put
feminist politics and anti-sexism in the forefront of
their political agenda these days as does any event you
go to. I mean really, with so many men writing about it
and holding workshops on it, one would think that sexism
would be a non-issue in activist communities. But it
isn't. So we must ask ourselves, with so many men taking
part in men's only groups to discuss and design steps
they can take to end male domination, why do we women
have to be subjected to the same shit over and over
again? Or maybe that question holds the key to the
problem- men dictating (once again) how to fight sexism.
Well we seem to find ourselves in a strange paradoxical
situation now don't we? Men are attempting to fight the
patriarchal system by epitomizing the patriarchy.
I am not saying that a man cannot write on or
that they shouldn't discuss sexism. I know quite a few
feminist guys with excellent feminist politics. Some of
these men are involved with the same organizations that
I am and some even write exceptional political pieces on
gender- I am sure most women have these kinds of male
comrades. But these aren't the guys we are talking about
are we? We are talking about the guys who have all male
groups that claim to fight sexism- yet do it from a male
standpoint. We are talking about the guys who proclaim
that they are "ex-Manarchists"- yet still engage in
chest puffing at protests. We are talking about the guys
who are omnipresent on e-mail lists and message boards
saying things like "I think there are too many men
speaking here and maybe we should be quiet now and let
the women speak" but when we see them at conferences we
can't get a word in edgewise. We are talking about the
guys who hold all male workshops to talk about sexism,
what it means, what it is and how it affects them- I
believe its called Consciousness Raising- yet look at
getting pepper sprayed proudly as a symbol of their own
radical politics.
So what should men be doing?
Well, how about developing feminist politics for a
change? The "12 step" model to fight sexism that seems
to be so popular these days just isn't cutting it. This
model in no way constitutes any sort of political attack
on male supremacy. These "how to guides" of anti-sexism
don't show any sort of engagement of feminist materials.
Frankly, if you want to fight the "Manarchy" these days,
a little political education is in order. A good friend
gave me an excellent example of this. He said, "If you
want to fight white supremacy you follow the tradition
of John Brown, you don't go to a workshop." Similarly,
if you want to fight being a "Manarchist", why don't you
try tearing down the structure of male supremacy instead
of going to a sensitivity training? Instead of working
only to recognize the oppression that you as a man
engage towards women, why don't you actually follow one
at a protest? Instead of writing the "top 15 things a
guy can do in a meeting to be respectful of women", why
don't you become familiar with political attacks that
women have engaged in on the patriarchy and follow in
their footsteps? While I personally do appreciate it
when men are conscious of their long-windedness at
meetings and respectful of women when they speak, I am
more appreciative of men with good feminist politics,
because they seem to be a dying breed.
Truly the
term "Manarchist" doesn't accurately define the
adversary we face as women today. What is that really? A
guy who claims to be against all forms of oppression yet
fails to realize that he is oppressive to women. Sounds
like a barefaced sexist to me. The cops claim to be
against oppression don't they? But they still fuck with
black youth in Compton and commit Emmett Till murders
every day. The media claims to be against oppression,
yet it still produces things like Maxim magazine and
Rush Limbaugh. We as women activists aren't immune to
sexist behavior, sexist chatter or sexist guys any more
than any other woman in this society is and no amount of
male writing or male sensitivity training seems to be
curing the problem. When was the last time you saw a
woman up front at a protest? Have the majority of
activist men started looking to women for leadership and
I just missed it? When do these guys stop telling
everyone how not to be a "Manarchist" while personifying
the patriarchy? When do these guys stop deciding what is
right for women at these events and actually follow the
tradition of radical women? Sexism is alive and well in
the activist community, just ask a woman… Oh, what a
great idea!
The following comments are
owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible
for what they say.
comment by Farnam
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 01:24 PM
PST
I have a problem with using the
word "Manarchist", where man is the root word. The word
automatically suggests that men are all aggressive, and all women
are submissive. I know plenty of men who are pretty easy going, and
plenty of women who are indeed assertive. This whole "Manarchist"
debate was flawed from the beginning, by using stereotypes to fight
stereotypes.
Lastly, i want to address the issue that the
Rock Bloc, who are the original to coin the term "Manarchist", tried
to address. Their critique stems from an organizational meeting for
the black bloc of the Inauguration. The statement "If you aren't
willing to take a Billy club to the head you can't march with us!",
is paraphrased, because i dont remember anyone ever saying that,
though something was said to that effect. And you know what? Theyre
right! If youre going to march with the black bloc, you had better
fucking commit to it. Theres other people within the bloc that are
expecting a little bit of solidarity. If you cannot make that
commitment, then join up with a march or something, because we dont
need black bloc tourists.
Now you can try to interpret that
argument as being sexist, as the Rock Bloc has, but you would be not
only wrong, but look pretty dumb at the same time.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 01:34 PM
PST
i want to say again that i think
this article is terrible and i hope some of the women from my
community post their critiques of this somewhere sometime cause i
think they are real good.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 01:38 PM
PST
I think Traci Harris makes some
valid points in this article, and I just wanted to note that female
activists have been making similar complaints in radical circles
since at least the 1960s. Personally, while I'm not about to engage
in any PC sense of collective male guilt, I am always trying to
improve my communications skills in meetings, whether women are
present or not. Sexist or overbearing behavior is just another
example of how thoroughly our society and our lives have been
affected by power relations.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 01:58 PM
PST
I agree, claiming that women are
unwilling to fight as hard as men is sexist. I was arrested because
people who were wearing masks and dressed in black dropped their
shields and ran, causing a stampeed and leaving the few who held
their ground to be arrested. (if I remember correcty 3 of the 6
people in the wagon with were females). They were more than willing
to be arrested and hit.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 02:31 PM
PST
I posted this as a follow up to: Shut
the Fuck Up. I thought that article brought up some really good
points about anti-sexist male behavior at meetings/demos/actions and
such. This article seems to go about the whole issue entirely
differently. There are a few things I don't agree with (as with
everything), but I do think it has many valid points and is overall
something people need to consider. It seems most people don't like
the term manarchist.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 02:36 PM
PST
"A guy who claims to be against all
forms of oppression yet fails to realize that he is oppressive to
women. Sounds like a barefaced sexist to me. The cops claim to be
against oppression don't they? But they still fuck with black youth
in Compton and commit Emmett Till murders every day. The media
claims to be against oppression, yet it still produces things like
Maxim magazine and Rush Limbaugh."
Then all men are liars and
all are sexist, right? Really traci? can you really say that?
because then YOU certainly are a barefaced liar !
I won't
deny that there is alot of sexism in the "movement" but not all men
are sexist and oppressive. And it certainly isn't a problem
exclusive only to women. people of color, quiet people, short
people, hairy people....really alot of people get pushed around and
underappreciated and disrespected in meetings and activities. It's
not just a women thing and it isn't always based around some
biological or social construction that someone is neglected. Alot of
feminist ideology these days is reading like this reactionary and
ideological essay.
This piece just reads like more
guilt-inducing identity-politics.
"Show me a woman who hasn't
felt as if she was talked over at a conference."
show me any
one of us who hasn't had to feel the cold had of indifference and
disrespect. While sexisim is certainly a problem I think we should
see everyone as individuals first, not as some grouping of people
with "rights" (women, men, people of color, midgets, children, etc).
And we should respect and listen to everyone with fairness.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 02:49 PM
PST
You're absolutely right.
She
and those other whining feminists should just shut the fuck up and
deal with sexism as it exists. After all, white males have a lot to
deal with, and they "feel the cold had of indifference"
too.
Or maybe we should take the author's points into
consideration and formulate new strategies and practices to combat
sexism. I suppose that would be too reasonable for thinly veiled
patriarchs like yourself.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 02:51 PM
PST
Both articles were good.
Personally, I don't give a fuck about "internal process" unless
someone is doing something so offensive that it can't be ignored. I
think people focus on internal dynamics because they aren't doing
jack shit outside of it. Guys who line up to declare themselves
"Manarchists" are the same guys who aer going to be selling out in a
few years and then writing books about their glorious days in "the
movement" in ten, all the while benefitting from their bourgeois
privelege.
Actions speak louder than words; being non sexist
in your dealings with women means more than twenty anti-manarchist
brainwashing sessions. Treating a black person like a human being
when you deal with him or her means a hell of a lot more than
turning up the rap in your SUV and thinking about how you're down
with the people.
Frankly, I don't care if you like to hang
upside down in your bedroom wearing a leather Nazi uniform spanking
a girl in a maid uniform and chanting "Deutsche Land Uber Alles" as
long as it's consensual and you don't actually do anything to anyone
in the outside world.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:01 PM
PST
This gets to be such a touchy
issue. Almost everything you say gets turned around on you at some
point. With that said, I'll say this. It is important to watch
everyone's words and actions, even your own, when it comes to
interacting with people, and not just in meetings or at protests. We
get loaded down with so much cultural baggage that it's impossible
not to tread on someone at some point in your life. If you can
recognize and try to learn and from mistakes that's a good thing.
But this endless classification of people and their behaviors seems
to be slightly academic for my tastes. Like Harry said before, isn't
it best to just treat people as individuals and work from
there?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:22 PM
PST
I didn't read Down with the
Manarchy, or whatever it was called. But I read this article, and
here's a few things I think about it. Any man who thinks that he is
nonsexist or a former manarchist, is fooling himself, and probably
some others as well. As men who have been raised in capitalist
patriarchal society, it will take us years to unsocialize ourselves
away from those things. Even if you believe all the stuff you spout,
it's near impossible to implement them all in your mind, or actions.
But, I also don't appreciate all the generalizing about men or
women. Attributing aggressive behavior(especially towards cops)
solely to sexist men, is ridiculous. I know plenty of cops who get
treated poorly by women, as well as men with good politics(who I
don't consider nonsexist, but I don't think the sexism/patriarchy
has anything to do with it, the cops are the enemy, fuck em). I
think we ALL need to work on our gender politics, whether it be in
workshops, demos, personal relationships, whatever. But I don't
think it's fair to criticize someone for trying to work on those
issues, but don't believe they're nonsexist, but recognize that they
are working on it, and for petes sake, talk to them about it, tell
them how you fell about it. Confront them on their bullshit. I've
ranted to much, and expect said things that may or may not be
perfect as they came off the top of my head. Whatever, I'm just a
male trying to overcome sexism, patriarchy, capitalism, death.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:34 PM
PST
"As the evening wore on, other
actions emerged from the severe lack of focus. I recall one man from
the protest strutting into the Gap only to be chased out by the pigs
brandishing their pepper spray. On another occasion a male protester
swaggered into the Borders bookstore and was directed forcefully to
the exit by the pigs once again."
I support an ongoing,
critical dialogue about sexism and it's influence on individuals and
the "movement". However, the comment above needs to be take in the
context of Traci Harris being a member of the Ruckus collective that
wants to tightly control everything, from protesting to the
revolution.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:38 PM
PST
yeah, I agree with some points in
this article, but it does tend to get circular at
points.
Watch yourself, watch your own behavior, and you're
taking a good first step in not oppressing others (and I think
that's true no matter your gender or culture).
100 hours in
workshops won't change a damn thing, and can just be another form of
armchair activism.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:39 PM
PST
I posted this on the other tread
but, only one person replied to it. So I'll post it
here...
Ok, I know I'm probably going to get a hell of a lot
of shit for this, but oh well.
I don't believe ALL MEN are
sexist. I believe that to be a very heterosexist comment. Most
people in saying that exclude transgender individuals. Persons that
are female bio but are men is a group of people that I don't believe
(majorally, there are always exceptions to everything) are sexist,
patriarchal males. Someone who has grown up oppressed because of
their (bio) gender. In the struggle for gender equality let us not
forget gender liberation and the need of persons to be able to
define their own gender. Yes, I know someone going to say, "What
about wimmin who are bio men? Don't they have male privilege?" Well,
I'll need to think about that more and I'll probably comment on that
later. Anyways, there is one critique of feminism I have: the
duality of it. There is only wimmin and men instead of a broad
spectrum that is included in the trans movement (which should go
more hand in hand with the struggle for gender equality).
Well, just some thoughts. I'm getting back to work. Hope to
hear some comments from folks. Later folks.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:39 PM
PST
The last march I was at was at the
Direct Action March Against the War in San Francisco and there were
plenty of women at the frontlines. In my experience any good
activism I have been involved with had strong women at the core of
the groups and doing the organizing. I have also seen some sexist
behavior at activist events, however, in my opinion no effective
activism can be done without women in the forefront and at the
center of the nodes in the networks we are part of.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:53 PM
PST
This article makes a few good
points and a few that I disagree with.
Initially, I would
like to say that I completely agree that men should not be
dominating the discussion on sexism - in our communities, workshops,
or on the internet. Except that has not been my experience at all in
Phoenix. The issue of sexism is rarely addressed in Phoenix and when
men have been called upon to address sexism within our community,
generally about half of them will even TALK to the other men about
it, much less hold one another accountable in more tangible ways.
Most of the discussions, workshops and events held regarding sexism
are organized by women and poorly attended (if at all) by men. Traci
links this domination of discussion (citing workshops and articles
written by men from other anarchist communities) and links it to the
local MayDay protest, which I helped organize and attend.
I
agree that there was a lack of staged and/or planned events at the
Phoenix MayDay. We (PAC and others) generally intentionally organize
in a very open way to allow affinity groups to take advantage of a
wide-open route/schedule of events. The few "events" we planned and
had ready to go were thrawted by unexpected state repression, i.e.
the MayPole being "outlawed" stopped by cops and we chose not to
risk arrest for the MayPole at the very start of the event. However,
I do agree that there was a lack of route planning and my personal
opinion on event planning has changed towards advocating a more
structured route for the *majority* of the march, in part because of
MayDay. However, no route-plan, or lack thereof, can account for a
lack of decentralized affinity-group action. If people do not come
prepared with events for the march, then we simply march and yell
and protest.
Of course, let's not ignore the many of the
other tactics that occurred that day (which are not mentioned in the
article above) - a dance troupe did in-the-street choreographed
dancing, a small band played music, including a trumpet and drums
and a didgereedoo, traveling FNB, roller-skating and street theatre
and confetti, to name a few. It seems that Traci has, much like the
mainstream media, completely disregarded the rest of the actions and
messages and focused on a few "angry men." I agree with the "plan"
critique, but do not feel that it is related to sexism via the
charade or militancy or the decentralization. I think the sexism can
be more clearly seen when we look at who plans for activities at
these protests? All too often, it is the women show up with radical
cheer, in costumes, with flyers and plans, not the men. MayDay, in
particular, since it is more of a celebration than a protest, needs
an idea about a plan of action.
I do not have any delusions
about sexism being a thing of the past, but critiqueing
decentralization and loose organizing does not seem to be the way to
solve the problems. We do not need men to define sexism for us.
However, we do need more women writing articles like, "How anarchist
men can help us out." We need men to be as supportive of our efforts
as they are to other mens'. And we need our sisters to stop calling
themselves "not educated enough," "too stupid," "scared to speak in
public," "afraid to write an article," "ugly," "fat," etc etc etc.
We need more women to write articles like the one above and more
women to respond to them. We need our own projects for anarchism -
not against men, we just need our own to practice. We need men to
outreach to other women as much as they outreach to men and see
their political issues as such. Comment and critique welcome. .
.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 03:56 PM
PST
"isn't it best to just treat people
as individuals and work from there?"
Ideally, this is how
things would work. But alas, as we haven't quite made it to utopia
yet, we have to deal with the unpleasantries, oppressions and social
constructs of the here and now. People arrive at where they are as a
subject through a two-fold process: experience and context, the
individual and the collective. We can't help who we are, and it is
important to recognize that our surroundings (culture) profoundly
impact our individual selves, no matter how tuned out from the
mainstream culture we might be.
Social constructs, dominant
paradigms, hegemonies, whatever you want to call it, are subtle and
complex - they influence us in ways that are hard to pin down. An
interesting question: how are an individual's personal preferences
and desires formed? Are they innate to the individual, or are they a
complex amalgam of individual experience and social
surrounding?
Try as we might to seperate ourselves from the
dominant culture, it still pervades our innermost being - and the
dominant culture is racist, sexist, speciest, ageist,
heteronormative, etc. Therefore, no matter how much we oppose these
things rationally, the process which formed our individual
subjectivity was profoundly altered by this interference, if you
will. This plays itself out in our daily lives as we seek to
interact with other subjects.
I guess what I'm rambling
about is this: until a child is raised in a completely egalitarian,
anarchist society (an abstraction), people will always be tainted by
authoritarian impulses. Thus, it is vital that we attempt in some
manner to compensate for this taint by seeming to "privilege" one
group above another in the struggle - non-whites, children, womyn,
queers - when in reality we are just making our best attempt to
address the subtle and pernicious influence of the dominant culture.
It's not perfect, but should we return to the days of all-male
executive committees and so forth and so on?
Further, is
revolution process or destination, or both? Does all oppression
magically end when we overthrow the oppressors? And for that matter,
who is the oppressor? The politician, capitalist, whites, straights,
patriarch, Norteno, human? None? All?
I probably could have
stated all that a lot better I'm sure, but my brain is engaged in a
slow-down strike today.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 04:27 PM
PST
hmm. yeah, the issues raised in
this article are really more about aggression, in general, than
sexism. as for the 'frat-boy' shit, god, i can't stand that, but
it's not just a male thing, and it definitely has nothing to do with
sexism. i find myself spoken over in discussions, too (and, yes, i
have a penis). MOST of these 'manarchists,' i believe, are just
egocentric bastards who need constant attention. there's plenty of
women with this problem, too, though.
anyhow, neither
aggression nor sexism are tolerable, and it's good that people seem
to give a shit, if they're sincere.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 04:50 PM
PST
dadanarchist, I agree with you
on this, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I wasn't trying to
simplify the problem, but I think it sort of sounded that way. I
just meant that a good starting point, would be, as much as
possible, to look at people as individuals first, rather than just
grouping everyone. Something tells me even with a "successful"
revolution against statism and capitalism this shit would still be a
problem to deal with. I don't know, I guess I have more questions
than answers - which is no surprise to me!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 04:51 PM
PST
I'm going to get shit for this, but
I have to agree that men need to shut the fuck up and just learn to
listen. This might be true of all people in all situations (Derrick
Jensen talks a lot about this re: nature), but it is especially true
of men and feminism.
One of the best experiences of my life
was attending a rally/event for Take Back the Night when I was in
school. For those unfamiliar, TBTN is an organization/event for
survivors of sexual abuse and their supporters. While I am well
aware that straight men can and are sexually abused, the vast
majority of survivors are womyn and queers. As such, TBTN is a
powerful feminist event.
At my school, it was organized into
a two-evening event. The first evening started with a brief
"service" with songs, poems and readings. From the "service"
everyone went outside and joined a candlelit march around campus,
the point being to "take back the night." Periodically the march
would stop and someone would read a poem, or recount a personal
account of abuse, and then pound a stake into the ground reading
"Take Back the Night." Apparently, in the past, this march had been
largely a womyn-only event, but this year in particular, coming off
the WTO protests in Seattle there was an upsurge in campus activism
and interest in confronting power. The womyn organizing it decided
to invite men. It was a racous evening with drums and other
noisemakers and nearly 300 people out of a student body of 1500
participating. Still, the vast majority of marchers were womyn. Most
of the speakers were womyn. The event was mostly organized by womyn.
Following the march was a speakout. Held in a darkened room where no
one could see, survivors told their stories if it moved them, and
people listened silently, cried, and often imparted messages of
support, love and resistance. The spirit of the first evening was
anger, defiance, resistance, healing. I participated in all this,
didn't say a damned thing the whole evening except perhaps for
shouting cheers during the march and banging on a drum, and left
feeling shamed, heartbroken, hopeful and perhaps a little more
enlightened.
The second evening was a little different,
split into two parts, occuring simultaneously: first, a discussion
among womyn; and second, a men's workshop to discuss sexual abuse.
Not being a survivor of sexual abuse, and being a man, I attended
the second event. It was organized as a workshop, facilitated by a
panel of men and womyn who had organized themselves for the purpose.
Following some introductory exercises, it plunged into the heart of
the matter - the ability of any man to be an abuser, and what men
could do to support survivors of sexual abuse. I said very little
the whole evening. Rather, I listened to what the womyn facilitating
the event had to say, the men who had more experience in these
matters than I, survivors, and others who had been placed in these
situations before. I feel like I learned a hell of a lot, and not by
listening to myself talk. However, I finally piped in when
discussion turned to support, because some men, while
well-intentioned, missed the purpose of support and inverted it
inwards, focusing on themselves. From there it degenerated into a
frankly patriarchal display of bravado. Men were suggesting that it
is the duty of male supporters to kick some ass, to make it clear,
through violence, that this behavior isn't right. I have no problem
with violence, but that isn't the point. The womyn and survivors who
were present had stated that what a survivor wants from a friend is
support - not advice, not revenge, but support. Or in other words,
for the supporter to shut the fuck up and listen, to not act, but to
listen and be available. Typically, men inverted all this inwards,
and made it about themselves. Men have a right to feel angry and
upset when a friend or loved one is abused - but not the right to
take action on "behalf" of that person - because ultimately that
action does less for the survivor and more for the man. It is
expression not of solidarity but of male power and powerlessness.
I left the evening confused, frustrated and maybe a little
threatened, vis-a-vis my role as a man, and as to what my role as a
man would be in womyn's liberation, with more questions than
answers. Is a lot of male talk about feminism merely a way for men
to feel that they can control and understand a phenomena that they
ultimately find threatening? Is it a way for men to cope with being
confused to blather on and on about their feminism? Do men have a
role in womyn's lib? If so, what? How do male actions in solidarity
with womyn ultimately strengthen patriarchy?
Ultimately, men
*should* find feminism challenging, because it *is* about smashing
patriarchy and dismantling male privilege. These are so ingrained
that we are unable at the moment to completely map out the way they
have permeated our consciousnesses and lives. This is why men find
these discussions threatening - because a fundamental part of
ourselves is being scrutinized and exposed. Male privilege is so
ingrained that its actions in social interactions is quite subtle
and often unintentional.
If I can attempt to conclude from
this long-winded and rambling digression with a bit of contradictory
advice, I would suggest that men who want to destroy patriarchy
contemplate the following course of action: 1. Listen. 2. Offer
verbal support. 3. Don't be afraid to be confused and feel
threatened. 4. Stand by womyn in solidarity, and if necessary,
solidarity in silence. 5. Don't offer unsolicited advice.
No
one individual has all the answers, and it is important to remember
that. If you don't know the best way to smash patriarchy, don't
worry, shut the fuck up, and listen, and someone, probably womyn,
will have a pretty damned good idea. If you aren't asked to
participate, don't sulk, don't be insulted, don't feel that yr
commitment to anarchism, feminism, the struggle, etc., is being
questioned, just accept this simple fact:
The liberation of
womyn is the work of womyn and womyn alone.
Men can stand in
solidarity, and will more likely than not be asked to help in the
stuggle, but in most cases, my feeling is that the best way for men
to aid in this process is to just get the fuck out of the way.
Anyway, these are my thoughts, I still have more questions
than answers, I can't claim they are inherent or consistent, but now
I'm going to take my own advice and be silent.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 05:08 PM
PST
Here is an honest question to which
I don't have an answer. At what point does something cease to be
sexism and merely become rude or insensitive?
Can we not
simply accept that men and women have some differences? If men tend
towards confrontation, why is that wrong? Why can't men and women
pursue tactics that are in line with their natures and their
personalities?
I guess my point is that if there is such a
thing as a manarchist, defined by excessive aggression, then is
there not also such a thing as a womanarchist, defined by excessive
compliance? Why should one sex's approach be
vilified?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 05:24 PM
PST
Can't we all just get along? I mean
if women have to live in fear of being raped and get 67 cents on the
dollar for the same work as men thats like just some sort of freak
accident that doesnt have anything to do with me or anything,
right?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 05:27 PM
PST
Just because most bosses are bossy
doesnt make them bad. Because there are also people who are like
compliant with the bosses, you know like the workers and stuff. Why
should one side of the boss-worker relationship be vilified?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 05:33 PM
PST
this article was about sexism in
the anarchist movment. i'm sure hacksaw, who seems to be expressing
sentiments similar to mine, recognises, as i do, the social problems
you refer to, goofy...but my point is that the picture of
"manarchist" behavior presented in this article is simply
AGGRESSION, which is damaging to everyone. yes, i'm a feminist, but
i think this article is flawed in its thesis that the dumb shit some
activists do is sexist, rather than aggressive.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 05:39 PM
PST
Its seems to me that a lot of
aggression has pretty obvious roots in sexism especially when it
comes from men and is directed at women or is about men competing
with each other over who gets to be the alpha male. Male aggression
sets a tone for the whole movement that really hurts us all.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 06:04 PM
PST
wow, dada anarchist, that was well
said. So many seem to feel that listening to someone's pain means
advice, opinions, anecdote trading, etc. The real challenge in any
interaction with someone is to suspend our own drama and agandas and
assumptions and *just *listen* One of the things most people tend
to get tripped up on is that most of us just assue that we have good
listening skills. Here's a hint: unless you learn something new
about how to communicate with people every single time you do so -
you are not improving or engaging your listening skills. There's
good books about it out there and the problems poor listening skills
create on all levels of our lives necessitate study in this
direction if yu haven't done so yet. It makes life so much easier.
So many confudions and miscommunications avoided. Such more
rewarding friendships and meetings. Consider it just as essential a
skill to the anarchst project as protest, propaganda, studying
american foreign policy or deconstructing privilege and
oppression.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 07:39 PM
PST
I'm on the side that is actively
walking away from those who are eternally concerned about how their
meetings are to be managed the next time they meet. I wonder what
you'd label me if I asked if there was something of pressing
importance we could discuss or prepare for.. Is there perhaps a
context beyond your meetings in which you are being oppressed by
your fellow activists? This article has sojourned into a whole new
territory in the name of all that is asinine.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 07:45 PM
PST
This whole "manarchism" label is
total bullshit. Basically it is a form of silencing or
illegitimizing one specific perspective. Anyone who is judged to be
"overly" agressive or confrontational towards the system - who is
miliitantly opposed to the system, rather than putting on fucking
puppet shows - is labelled a "manarchist". As many other people have
noted the label itself is even sexist, as it reinforces the
stereotype that agressiveness and militancy is by definition an
exclusively male trait and that passiveness is a female one. Calling
someone a "manarchist" because they advocate violence or are too
"hardcore" for your tastes is like Zionists calling pro-Palestine
protesters "anti-Semites" - it acts primarily as an abusive epithet
that can be hurled at ideological opponents in order to influence
those outside the debate to revile this individual and not listen to
what they say. After all, listening to and engaging in discussion
with a "manarchist" could get you labelled a "manarchist" too,
right? Most would do anything to avoid being a pariah, so they just
march in goosestep with the herd. Words like this just act to shut
down the part of the brain that deals with critical thought. I have
no problem with diversity of tactics, but if you come across someone
with more mettle and, dare I say, more bravery than you, do them a
favor and don't engage in petty name-calling just because they don't
fall in line with your ideals (this post is adressed to all who use
the term, not just the author of this piece). I agree that some of
the actions described in this article are pointless and stupid and
not wise tactically but I still think the manarchist label is
basically a way to label people thought-criminals. Here you go,
Juden, a yellow star with the word manarchist on it.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 08:14 PM
PST
i totally agree. i began to
familiarise myself with feminist theory at a relatively young age;
this theory (i hope) has given me the tools to examine my actions
(and the actions of others) with a feminist lens. but not a day goes
by when i don't encounter a situation where i have to think twice
about my actions (in terms of not being sexist). i'm constantly
having to un-learn the sexist/patriarchal behaviours i've been
conditioned into throughout my childhood. it's an ongoing process,
but i hope that i can eventually rid myself of any
sexist/patriarchal behaviour.
i think it's valuable for all
the men out there to familiarise themselves with feminist theory
(even if it isn't explicitly anarchist) and to be continually
examining their actions with these theories in mind. it's an ongoing
process; hopefully some tangible progress can be made.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 08:25 PM
PST
yeah, like, some people are treated
like shit and fear for their safety because of their gentitalia/skin
colour/sexual practices but hey, that's just a matter of manners,
not systemic bullshit. so we can totally all relax and start patting
ourselves on the back for our sensitivity to rudeness.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 08:29 PM
PST
it appears as though you're
assuming that gender roles are biologically determined. despite the
best efforts of sociobiological and evolutionary psychological
agendas in the mainstream media attempting to enforce these roles, i
think we can all agree that gender is a social construct, not
biologically determined.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 09:12 PM
PST
First off to dadanarchist. I
enjoyed your account of Take Back the Night, it was a good example
of men acting as allies in the struggle of sexual assualt, yet it
also shows how these same men do it for macho reasons. Your last
little bit: "The liberation of womyn is the work of womyn and womyn
alone." I don't think this is completely true. I believe that men
have their part in the liberation of womyn. Not some vanguardist,
dominationist (new word?) part, but as allies. It was one of the
best points the author of this essay made she compared the fight
against sexism to the fight against racism. To fight against sexism
you do as John Brown did in the fight against racism. I view the
struggles to be in similar terms. Here is what El Hadj Malik el
Shabazz (Malcolm X) about white allies in the struggle against
racism: "For one, when a white man comes to me and tells me how
liberal he is, the first thing I want to know, is he a nonviolent
liberal, or the other kind. I don't go for any nonviolent white
liberals. If you are for me and my problems - when I say me, I mean
us, our people - then you have to be willing to do as old John Brown
did." Just some thoughts...
I don't even want to comment on
the above poster. Too much for me to say, and I really really really
need to Shut the Fuck Up!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 07:29 AM
PST
Thats true, but you can't deny that
the agression in the world and inside the anarchist movement comes
overwhelmingly from men. We can act like that is just a coincidence
or we can admit that there is a big problem with how men in general
are raised to act and try to do something about it.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 07:32 AM
PST
did you read the above post and
think "that HAD to have been written by some arrogant 'manarchist'
guy," or did you think "that must have been written by some
pissed-off woman," or did you not think of gender at all?
all
I have to say is, there are many, many, MANY women out there who are
far more willing to be militant and confrontational and aggressive
than I am (I am a man) -- and they usually recognize the limitations
of others, so we don't get disparaged for not being as
confrontational -- so this shouldn't be about how far we can go as
activists but rather how we treat each other in daily life.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 09:34 AM
PST
I think people really need to
understand the context of this article, it builds a straw man
argument in defense of a stronger(cadre) organizing model using the
issue of sexism. Why would anyone want men to stop talking about
sexism?? A fact that was pointed out to me awhile ago flies in the
face of some of the writers "facts". She claims that theres all
kinds of groups for men to talk about sexism all over the country,
and that even locally men have written on the issue. It begs the
question, who? where? Because I only know one group of men dedicated
to working on sexism, and I dont remember any anti-patriarchy
literature coming out of Phoenix. It bothers me, maybe others dont
see it as clearly but the author is using the issue for one specific
purpose. Its ridiculous. Does the author know any of these groups
and what they actually do?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 10:19 AM
PST
OK,
Lots of discussion, yet
I think a vital point has been missed. The subject isn't men's
sexism in the abstract but men's sexism in the "anarchist movement".
Yet, any discussion of the entire "movement's" group dynamics is
considered secondary. The men and women of the present anarchist
milleau come from a similar background to that of the earlier
leftist milleau. But more than that, there are number of factors
which cause an informal hierarchy to exist in this milleau
regardless of the formal organization. Over-all, the biggest factor
is that rather than being a set group, the mileau has a center and
fades out from this center - some people are all the way in, some
people are some of the way, some people are barely in. And those who
are all the way have to actively maintain their situation of being
all the way in (through being active).
Going to Food Not
Bombs regularly, mostly to actually get food, I notice a certain
subgroup which walks with a super-macho strut. And there's no doubt
that this helps these dudes maintain a position in the informal
hierarchy (and informal hierarchies naturally exist in action
factions based on how one is and in the politico faction based on
how well you sling language around). The point is that telling
someone to stop doing something that works for them is futile. These
macho dude are going to be jumping on each other, etc., for as long
as it pleases the mixed-gender crowd. If the group was a serious
community which made an effort to support each member, where
competition was not necessary to gain a place, then perhaps it
wouldn't happen. But that's FAR from the case now.
And
moralizing and 12-step models are interesting thing. Essentially,
chewing someone out for one or another bad behavior has generally
become simply a different game of informal hierarchies - with women
perhaps more represented (or not, as the case may be). The
moralizing approach is also the bureaucratic approach - clamp some
verifiable external criteria of behavior on people. Lately it's the
use of words though I suppose body language might be up for grabs as
well. But the bureaucratic approach is by definition external, and
thus insincere and shallow. Enforcement committees, language rules
and other such rot have showed able to change people's behavior but
not their undeflying motivations (either good or bad).
And
since the moralizing approach doesn't solve the internal hierarchy
problem, it isn't strange to see it co
Lastly, i want to address the issue that the Rock Bloc, who are the original to coin the term "Manarchist", tried to address. Their critique stems from an organizational meeting for the black bloc of the Inauguration. The statement "If you aren't willing to take a Billy club to the head you can't march with us!", is paraphrased, because i dont remember anyone ever saying that, though something was said to that effect. And you know what? Theyre right! If youre going to march with the black bloc, you had better fucking commit to it. Theres other people within the bloc that are expecting a little bit of solidarity. If you cannot make that commitment, then join up with a march or something, because we dont need black bloc tourists.
Now you can try to interpret that argument as being sexist, as the Rock Bloc has, but you would be not only wrong, but look pretty dumb at the same time.