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 coexist with Machoness - the
most effective dominator today can slip between machoness and
feminist talk. And really, a sexist man who knows the rules can
fiddle things so he often dominate the situation versus a non-sexist
man who doesn't know the rules or even a woman who doesn't know the
rules. Oddly enough, I know of certain friend of Mr. Kooky who was a
master spinner of feminist rhetoric, showing himself amply willing
to bring down the screws on certain "bad boys" - and last I got
about "D" is that he joined the police academy. This doesn't prove
that you have to be cop to spout the self-flagelating
anti-manarchist rhetoric but does show that wanting to be a cop
isn't incompatible with pushing this rhetoric.
Unfortunately, I don't think either bad behavior or
bureaucratic/moralistic effort to "clamp down on the problem" are
going to vanish as long as the scene has the structure that it does.
But I think that individuals can certainly notice and learn
from this. And really, it illustrates the difference between the
communities that arise when the dispossessed revolt and the scenes
that exist parasitically on capitalist society and which reflect the
structure OF capitalist society rather than being examples of a new
way of relating. And naturally, there are other important
conclusions you could be make from this. (For clarification, I
am indeed comparing the anarchist scene negatively compared to what
could exist in an actual revolt against capitalism but I am *NOT*
comparing it negatively to other mileau which also contain much of
the order of capitalism).
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 10:56 AM
PST
This is all a matter of
chicken-and-egg bullshit. Some of you want to blame systems and some
want to blame individuals, yet fail to see that systems are created
by individuals through a continual evolutionary process. It's all
philosophical argument. Yawn.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 10:59 AM
PST
Oh please, we were talking about
rude behavior in a meeting, and you try to equate it with rape. Your
response is the reason that there can be no open dialog on this
subject. You have a knee-jerk reactionary response to honest
inquiry.
Imagine if I were someone who wanted to become more
educated about the anarchist movement. I would have been turned off
it forever by some asshole who wanted to make a witty (but
completely irrelevant) comment.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 11:50 AM
PST
I can't say I personally have a lot
of disgust at men trying to check their own sexist behavior or
forming men's groups to target sexism and patriarchy -- in many ways
I think it is positive development.
I think in many ways
because of the messed up way men are socialized and the messed-up
nature of this society men take criticisms about this sort of thing
from other men more to heart than women.
I also think there
can be made a position made that fighting sexism, gender roles and
patriarchy from the point of view of the interest of men being
happier, more fully developed people that complements other
arguments for women's liberation -- and hopefully will ultimately
help it be more fully realized in practice.
In all honestly,
I must add that I am sometimes disturbed by the implications of
statements that make females the absolute authorities for negating
patriarchy.
Questions arise in my head: Does this mean women
should mold and re-make men in their own image?
Does this
mean overcoming patriarchy is not about co-operation between sexes
and genders, and that men should have no agency at all in a struggle
that initimately involves them and their own lives?
Does this
mean that women are actually better able to understand what is going
on in men's minds and how to change unhealthy behaviors and power
relationships than people actually inhabiting male
bodies?
These questions and comments do not by any means mean
that I think women do not understand their own oppression better
than men and do NOT imply at all that men should somehow be the
center of the struggle for women's liberation against
patriarchy.
I have discussed these critiques several times
with local women anarchists and at the NAAG and my impression is
they were taken under serious consideration.
One more thing I
would also add is that the tone of this article -- while it probably
serves a valuable purpose -- is one that I have seen used many times
in the past in conversations with men and it is one that in my
impression causes most men to just clam up and agree with the
speaker of them. As a man I think a lot of male anarchists tend to
just nod their heads in agreement with arguments that challenge them
-- especially in a personal way -- and often don't speak truthfully
about how they feel or engage in critical discussions about topics
of this nature. I would urge male (and male-identified if it fits)
anarchists to speak openly and truthfully and engage in critical
discussion and behavior changes.
If it's worth anything
coming from me, I would encourage woman (and female identified)
anarchists to approach arguments of this nature in a variety of
different approaches and tones -- Again I'm not saying a
confrontational approach is worthless, simply that it can be
complemented by other approaches. Hopefully, diversity, depth,
honesty and dedicated struggle will help us all realize a better
future.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 03:25 PM
PST
i have a lot of thoughts on
this...sorry if its a little rambling.
"The liberation of
womyn is the work of womyn and womyn alone."
i totally
disagree with this statement. i know dad@ probably said this with
good intentions, and i DO believe that men should allow women to
define their own oppression (duh) and step back in some instances to
allow for that space that men so often take up, even in discussions
about sexism.
BUT i am a firm believer in a process that very
few men have really started to think about: men fighting patriarchy.
this is different from "men fighting sexism" (which i also think men
should think about) - but it goes deeper. the effects of patriarchy
are not always found simply in relation to women ("sexism"). infact,
i believe the root of sexist behavior is actually found in the
oppression of men by patriarchy: the way they see and know
themselves- the sources of their power.
i have for many
years felt that there was something missing in our (womens) work of
liberation that we do in women-only space- the "reclaiming" of a
positive self-image and womens solidarity. i think its perfectly
wonderful for us women to feel powerful AS WOMEN and to find meaning
in our woman-ness. why is it that men dont seem to feel the same
thing for themselves? i have been grappling with this for years.
many men seem to think they have no right to that (male guilt).
others seem to think that anti-sexism is simply about women claiming
their power to be equal with men, and men shutting up.
most
men seem to be just confused about this. of course the idea of men
only space is wierd (like "white only space). yes, the "mens
movement" has a strange non-appeal, especially to anarchist men.
even the idea of "mens pride" the way we develop "womens pride"
feels wrong to men. but i do believe that a positive self-awareness
of maleness is possible. i think men should be developing this and
sharing it with women, and strengthening their bonds with other men,
so they can better understand and dismantle the effects of
patriarchy on them. it is really too bad to me that so many
"feminist" women out there have developed such a liberal,
simpleminded identity politic (thanks to academia) that they don't
seem to value this potential. i see way too much female empowerment
coming from the subservience and diempowerment of men.
in my
opinion, men are very disemowered in our culture. yes, materially
they have power. but spiritually and emotionally, they are decimated
(as are women, in different, but no more detrimental ways). i think
unless this changes, men (and many women) will continue to abuse,
talk over, and generally take power, because they are at a loss for
the kind of power that many of us women have found. men have the
same needs as women for affirmation of self. i am ashamed that some
women out there in anarchist circles (i wont call them anarchist
women) are taking advantage of the male guilt complex, and the lack
of self-affirmation men suffer from, to silence and intimidate men
for their own power lust.
we all have power-lust. men are
taught by our culture to satiate theirs by any means necessary- and
in our culture, it is easy for them to do. Women are also taught
that, and although it has historically been harder, many of us do it
too- more and more as the world becomes supposedly more non-sexist.
but the root problem is POWER- not aggression as many have
suggested. agression is a NATURAL HUMAN INSTINCT, and if we didnt
have it we would have become extinct a long time ago. infact we NEED
it. it is often quite useful, especially in protest situatins. but i
agree that we can use it wisely or we can abuse it, and others (and
the rest of nature) in the process.
men and women can both
abuse power, although it has been my experience that men abuse it
more often. in the situation the Rock Block "are you a manarchist"
article described of young hyped up agrro male black blockers- i
dont find myself feeling oppressed by people like that. i just feel
sorry for them that that is there way of expressing their (lack of)
power over their own lives. all my close male friends are far more
controlled (self), level-headed, and calm when in those situations,
which doesnt mean they arent militant.
and when they aren't
calm? they have a right to their own expression. who am i to judge
whether or not its agood or bad thing. why should it bother me one
way or another? that way of thinking makes me wonder if the writer
(of the original post) is a control-freak/leftist. it reveals a
liberal minded "feminist" ideology: reductionist thinking into
categories, ignoring the exceptions, simplifying complex situations
to try and back up your opinions.
anyone who would like to
continue discussing this subject who is coming from a similar place
as me, please let me know because i want to co-develop a process for
men and women discussing anti-patriarchy that doesnt rely on
identity
politics.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 04:32 PM
PST
i think traci's article was really
good except for a few points.
i think the problem with men
writing about manarchism/sexism and having men's only meetings about
it isn't a problem in itself. i think it allows men to talk to each
other and learn from each other. i bet that for the most part, men
are going to be more likely to read something about
manarchism/sexism that's written by a man than they would read
something on the same subject by a woman. if it's by a woman, men
tend to get defensive, whether it's because it's written by a woman,
whether they have experience with anti-manarchist literature by
women (like the "are you a manarchist? questionaire" which is
written in a way that i can understand men getting defensive about,
and i'm working on a response to it), or their sexism just causes
them to not want to read written pieces by women either consciously
or subconsciously. so i think it's good that there are things out
there on manarchism/sexism by men because i think it gets a wider
audience. the problem is actually the illusion that since men are
writing about it, reading about it, and having meetings about it,
that they're cured or on their way, and maybe also by default, that
most radical men are cured (or on their way). we know that this just
isn't true. there's a hell of a difference between hanging out with
real frat boys and hanging out with anarchist men, but anarchist men
still have shit to work on.
my other issue is with traci's
characterization with the mayday event. i'm pretty sure this is
about mayday 2002 in tempe? the event was planned by anarchists.
while anarchists are organized, they organized themselves, not
others- at least that's the way we were working (and the amount of
people that showed to the event was tens of times the amount that
organized the event). while the starting point of the event was
planned and shared, there were no specifics about the route or the
goal- except to hopefully take the streets. no one was about to
force upon the huge group any route or instructions. it was a
celebration of mayday, not a protest. it would make sense for a
protest to have a set route: these are the people we want to reach,
these are the targets we want to disupt, etc. the mayday event was
not controlled by anyone except maybe the drummers, which happened
automatically. it was chaotic, impulsive, and fun. it was advertised
as a street party, a celebration. the fact that we went around the
block a few times and danced in the streets had nothing to do with
manarchism or sexism.
i'll agree to an extent that the
behavior that men participate in during protests and actions is
related to a sort of machismo. but i also think that it has more to
do with fighting the fight they are most familiar with. what do
white men have to deal with? they mainly only have to deal with
economic oppression (if that) and legal oppression. so they pick
fights with the cops and it's like a badge of honor if they've been
pepper sprayed or something. they don't have to also struggle
against sexism and racism (if they're white). so that's their fight,
and it's okay with me if they fight it. my rage is more evenly
distributed maybe, i don't know, but i just have no interest in
pissing off cops. the idea that it's a badge of honor to have
disputed with the cops is not something i think is good for the
community or anarchism, but i don't have a problem with the disputes
themselves, as long as i'm not put in danger without my consent. i
think men have to think about why they get so pissed off about cops
while they just consider reading a feminist pamphlet or talk about
starting a mens group to discuss gender oppression.
i also
want to know how traci knows that the guys who seem to work on their
manarchism or sexism are the same ones who participate in overtly
sexist behavior. i agree that no man should call himself an
ex-manarchist (although i don't like the term manarchist at all),
but he can certainly work on his issues and deserve some
acknowledgement that he's trying.
finally, i think it's not
necessarily better for men to be reading feminist literature or
stuff by radical women than it is to go to anti-sexism workshops and
meetings. while workshops and meetings may not be organized the best
and change may not come out of all of it, it's more connected to the
community. it allows the opportunity to discuss issues that affect
women the men know and to discuss the situations that are present in
their own communities. women's experiences change all of the time.
how many essays can one find like traci's on how "ex-manarchist"
affect the climate of sexism in anarchist communities? how are we
going to figure out how to combat the effects of this by reading a
book or essay even 2 years old? i think it's important to read these
things, but i don't think it's pointless nor detrimental to continue
to organize or attend workshops and discussions to combat
sexism.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 04:41 PM
PST
bringing up the point about
transgendered people is really important. although it's harder to
talk about sexism in the context of realizing that the gender
dichotomy is not so black and white, it needs to be kept in
mind. particularly because of the use of the word "manarchy" and
even the term sexism related to talking about aggressiveness and
other "masculine" traits, we need to be discussing what we're really
against. especially as anarchists we need to be more specific
instead of just saying "you're sexist because of what you did
because you're a man and i'm a woman". it's not that simple. too
often men are generalized and "masculine" behavior is seen as
automatically bad because some of it is oppressive. but we need to
talk about oppressive behavior as oppressive behavior beyond the
context of gender, especially because gender is fluid.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 04:50 PM
PST
i agree that it says something
about sexism when, for example the planning of mayday in tempe was
characterized as being planned by men, at least that's what one
would think reading about the planning in the context of sexism.
plus, as i wrote in response to the article, i don't see the
connection between lack of control over a celebration event and
sexism. i also saw an example of this when i read repsonses from
an anti-war group describing the actions of our anarchist group by
the actions they saw a couple men doing. why do the men represent
the group? (i realize it could have been because of their extreem
behavior, but still). why didn't the girls on bikes represent our
anarchist group.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 04:57 PM
PST
i also have that question. often i
get talked over but i never can be too sure if it's because i'm a
woman or because i'm shy or both. fortunately this has been talked
about in my anarchist community and women have some room to say,
hey, you're talking over me, can you stop. and often times this
behavior stops. although, obviously there are women who talk over
men and a man doesn't have the same ability to call her on that. i
also wouldn't be as likely to call a woman on interrupting me. that
is something that needs to be changed.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 06:03 PM
PST
I think you are probably right, I
phrased it a little simply, and we most likely agree. I guess what I
am talking about is that the best way for men to help fight
patriarchy is to liberate themselves, and to transcend the narrow
gender roles which society places on us all. I just think that for
too many men, they think they can fight patriarchy by fighting for
women, rather than along side women, and never think about fighting
for themselves.
Rambling again, but do you catch my drift?
I think a permanent forum for gender and anarchism would be
most useful.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 01 2002 @ 08:35 PM
PST
Actually, the lack of
guilt-inducing identity politics distinguishes this article. Instead
of repeating the tired prescriptions of male sensitivity trainings
and "12-step prorams," Traci suggests that sexism is solved in the
process of struggle, and not just by forming caucuses and parroting
what women say. Alot of anarchists need to hear this loud and clear.
Now, I do disagree with her endorsement of the "stick it to
the manarchy" article. That article was stupid as fuck. - Ryan
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 09:45 AM
PST
"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."
This does
look like the author took the opportunity to put down this protest
because it wasn't controlled well by the organizers or something. I
would also like to know how an uncontrolled event is sexist and also
how does yelling at cops necessarily relate to gender, because, as
has probably been said, women yell at the cops as well.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 01:08 PM
PST
word... i think it's interesting
to make the distinction between fighting 'sexism' and patrirachy,
and that it's a good step infact.
i don't know how i feel
about this article. i think it further illustrates the impossiblity
for a static analysis of patriarchy and what fighting it looks like
in an anarchist context. i do however, want to affirm any womyns
experience, even if she is a leftist...
i think this is a
good article along with the are you a manarchist/anti-patriarchy
male-identified groups tendency for different communties to look at
and figure out what is right in their context, and be able to change
as well...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 04:29 PM
PST
This article reminds me so much of
other academic writings where the main idea is 'give up, you'll
never get it right'.
It's the same in all academic identity
politics, if we do we're damned and if we don't we're damned.
Leaching onto small phrases like 'ex-manarchist' and trying to
distort the phrase into represneting a whole personality and
movement. As an anarchist who does support Women, I wonder why the
fact that men are organizing each other to begin acting less exist
is such a problem?!!
This is important and this is exactly
what many feminists proscribed to men as a way to combat sexism! Now
we hear people generalizing that this is all men do and it's idiotic
and frustrating! Tracy has to try and realize that we are attempting
to make progress instead of condemning anything anyone tries in good
faith. AS I said before the solutions come slowly, it's a process
that won't end any time soon, but I think it's healthy for men to be
dealing with thier own shit, adn attempting to bring that into their
lives and into actions rather then generalizing in a way that just
shuts down communication, where the insinuation is that we should
just give up.
This piece is mostly just elitist (because it
offers not options for real change) academic fluff. If someone wants
to draw some positive advice for action from this piece, please post
it, but all I see is negativity and arrogance. And I'd suggest men
stay on the road we're on, talking to each other and trying to
better our actions rather then falling for the original sin argument
of liberal academics.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 04:41 PM
PST
I agree, I think equating being a
woman with less confrontational tactics is flawed. (though people
might be socialized to be more confortable with certain ways of
expressing themselves). It's niether feminine of masculine to
confront authority physically. I was just reading no trespassing
where the author talks about how women were more open to direct
action, and much more militant then men in many cases.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 03 2002 @ 10:12 PM
PST
Hear a Woman Out
Why when a
woman speaks about sexism or patriarchy and critiques the behavior
of men (i.e. “Just Ask a Woman by Traci Harris”) within a movement
she herself is attached to is she called names? Why does she get
accused of being a leftist, a liar, an academic (oh, that's a
cut-especially for all those patrons of AK press), or instead of
addressing her politics focusing on her political
affiliations?
When I think of some of my own personal
experiences as a woman of color in a town that doesn't have a
history of being politically active, I think about historical
movements and how women and people of color have been treated
traditionally. I think about demonstrations that I have been
patrolling as a member of Copwatch and I see men getting in cops'
faces, challenging them. I don't disagree with downtalking a pig,
what I do disagree with is that it is done when adrenaline is high
and would not be done otherwise. In simple terms, it’s not the
confrontation itself, but the manner in which it is done. The
frat-boy tactic is coined as such because it is a social agreement
between the men in the group to act a certain way, a fraternal
contract (one between brothers,) rather than one between comrades,
which would include others. This type of behavior relies on (men on)
both sides knowing the game and how to play it, thus icing women out
because it generally unfamiliar to us. If the other men aren't
around, this behavior is less apparent.
Another example of
this type of behavior occurred recently after a demonstration when a
comrade of mine turned around and yelled at the one cop behind us,
"class traitor!" Two women I knew from another town were there with
me and I could tell they were visibly uncomfortable, as was I. When
my friend asked me if that was patriarchal, I responded that it was.
(Not because of what he said, but the fact that he wouldn’t have
done this without a bunch of men around him doing the same thing.) I
later found out that my opinion was seen as showing off in front of
these other women. I wondered how my feelings (which were asked for,
by the way) could be construed as showing off more so than his
yelling at the cop in front of all of his friends.
As to why
women get called names when they form an analysis, I will borrow
from Ashanti Alston in saying, "how does change happen if folks
don’t get uncomfortable?" By that, he meant that if we are going to
create change, we need to be made to feel uncomfortable. When men
get critiqued about their sexism they get uncomfortable and then
lash out by attacking the person making the critique. This is not
how we fight oppression; this is not how we address patriarchy. We
need to be made uncomfortable to transform society and ourselves,
and so we shouldn’t fear critique or hide from it by attacking
people personally.
"Just Ask A Woman" by Traci Harris
addresses current discussions around fighting sexism (i.e. using the
recent "manarchy" articles as examples, as well as local pamphlets
and list-serve discussions among anarchists in Phoenix.) Ms. Harris’
critique was not to dismiss Mayday or the organizing that went into
it, but to expose problems in the action so that they can be avoided
later. Her emphasis is placed on the need for women to be having
these discussions, rather than men defining what is anti-sexist and
patriarchal among themselves. Her point is that women need to talk,
men need to listen. The underlying theme in her essay is that it is
harder and more important (because of her examples and experiences
in the anarchist movement) for everyone to work on anti-sexist
behavior, to fight the patriarchy and work on feminist agendas.
Fighting the patriarchy is not about telling men to give up
because they will never get it right. It is about encouraging men to
listen to women when they have something to say rather than
discounting them or interrupting them. It is about constantly
evaluating the way in which we challenge power to make sure we don’t
reproduce power differentials in our actions. To simply disregard a
woman when she musters the bravery (and why should we /have/ to be
brave) to disagree, analyze, critique, or speak up perpetuates the
system of oppression dominated by white males. It is the same
domination that is inherent in the system that oppresses us as a
whole and it is alive and well within this movement, and if you
don't believe me then ask my fellow comrades (women and people of
color) who feel interrupted, talked over, sent to the back of the
room, etc.
The problem isn't the men who are making attempts
to recognize sexist behavior, instead it is the men who are
addressing the issue on local e-mail lists, and then taking
advantage of women when the computer gets turned off. The problem
isn't male groups who seek to find ways to support one another in
rectifying their sexist behavior, it is when the attempt stops there
and it becomes a moral issue that makes men feel okay with being
men.
Fighting sexism does not mean that women should remake
men. Personally, I like most men I know just the way they are—I
would just like them to stop finishing my sentences and patronizing
me in political situations. (Fortunately, the groups I work with now
don't present these problems for me.) Most women fighting sexist
oppression should not pretend to know best what is going on in the
minds of men but because of their oppression they do probably know
best how they are made to feel oppressed.
Women do not need
men to define sexism for us because they already have. It is up to
all of us to tear it down. That means that we need to develop a
praxis (put our politics into practice), not only be adopting a
commitment to feminist ideals (that means everyday), but developing
and practicing liberatory politics. In a nutshell, overcoming
patriarchy means overcoming sexist oppression. Not just by women,
but by men too. My point is if you want to know how, hear a woman
out.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 04 2002 @ 08:38 AM
PST
i really don't see any personal
'name calling' going on on this thread. i think traci has been
heard, and she asked for responses. i am a female and i responded
with my personal opinions on her comments. im sorry if you think i
was discounting her by calling her a leftist or an academic or
whatever, but i think its a legitimate observation that i have every
right to make in my analysis of her analysis. since i am a woman i
hardly think your "rule" of expecting men to listen to her and not
question her, applies to me. infact i think everyone has a right to
disagree with her, as long as its done respectfully, which i think
every male who responded has done.
i understand many of your
points and agree with a lot of them, but why couldnt you just make
them without trying to use the disagreements that have been written
as some kind of "proof" of patriarchal behaviors?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 04 2002 @ 11:10 AM
PST
Hi, as someone who helped put out
the Deal With It zine that Kooky's article was in, I thought I might
provide a context for it: Eugene, Oregon. Not the U.S., not the
whole international movement. While there are obviously sexist men
and sexism happening in other places, I would say that Kooky's
article was mainly about himself and people in Eugene--at the time
of the article(2000-2001) "manarchist" was being used by certain
people to refer to certain others. So, I'm a bit surprised that
Traci harris identifies a whole scene of "ex-manarchist" writers.
I've seen a lot of writing by men on sexisma and done some, but I
think that the number of men doing this is far smaller than the
number who aren.t. Far smaller. While every piece of writing usually
has some good points, including this one, I think that the basis for
her argument--the whole ex-manarchist scene--doesn't really
exist--at the very least not specifically as a "ex-manarchist"
scene. Anarchists are also such a small percentage of the
population: I think we take ourselves to seriously and assign much
more power to our various sub-groups than they have. i wish that
there were so many men writing on challenging sexism that they were
becoming a problem, but I just don't see it. Than again, maybe I
don't read enough newspapers and zines.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 09 2002 @ 06:31 PM
PST
just a reminder, sexism is
prejudice PLUS privilege. Just as racism is prejucice plus
privilege. Women can have a prejudice against men but they can not
be "sexist". Just as a Latino in this country can't be "racist"
against a white.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 17 2002 @ 05:15 AM
PST
It seems to me that 'manarchist' is
a word which has a meaning which most any anarchist male using it is
recovering from. The idea that there is a cure-all for any man's
sexism and patriarchy is idealistic and utopian (not meaning bad,
just meaning not likely anytime soon), and we can not change others
or some larger abstract society, but must work to change ourselves,
knowing no change will ever complete a person, nor be complete
within that person. I am frusterated. I am a young white (mostly)
male and I want to be an ally to women, but I realize that I do
fucked up patriarchal sexist shit. I want to stop doing these
things, but I feel as have no community to support me in these
efforts. If I appeal to men for help, it feels as if I am excluding
women and obviously being sexist and patriachal, typical manarchist
behavior. If I appeal to women for help, it feels as if I am
'getting in their way', not 'shutting the fuck up', that my very
approach will be ill-worded or ill-timed, inappropriate and/or
somehow sexist, labled and dismissed as manarchist. Asking males,
females and genderqueer people together seems to start nothing but
arguements that never end. I have many questions and I want to learn
how I can change myself from the inside out to be constantly less
sexist and patriarchal, but admitting to and wanting to talk about
my own personal sexist behavior seems to get me nothing but lablels,
dismissal and exclusion. Yes, according to the loose definition of
manarchist, I am, and I dont even know if I can say for sure that
I'm recovering, though I'd like to. I am a manarchist. NOW WHAT?
Talk to women? I found out the hard way that women, like men, can be
judgemental and dismissive. When I bring up a particular sexist act
or comment I made, or a train of thought which i suspect of being
patriarchal, there is no one, male, female or off the gender map who
even seems to notice my realization of those patriarchal roots or
pointing me in the direction of other realizations (is it selfish,
sexist, patriarchal or 'manarchist' of me to want this kind of
support?). I recive condemnation and condescending remarks instead
of support, and often enough recive exclusion. I need teachers and
healers, not judges. Maybe I'm just a slow learner, but thats no
reason for giving up on me. I make mistakes I am human like you and
I am trying to learn. I am a shy and often quiet person and it is
hard enough to ask for help, knowing I'll probably be judged for
actions and patterns I now realize to be both personally and
generally wrong, but then you add on this label, this catagory where
I am able to be filed away and dismissed without learning
anything... I want communication and open honest people, not slang
terms. I realized I will be judged for my past, but that wont stop
me from working to make my future to be better for all involved,
which could be you. If I came off here as slightly bitter or naieve,
maybe it's because I am. I wanna try harder and I dont know how and
it seems like everyone's to busy or scared or disgusted to help. I
think there are alot of people like me who are struggling with this
and are who not yet well versed in the history behind this struggle
(which is questionable in and of itself since it's led us here), but
feel that they want to and can be stronger allies for women, given
more wisdom and opportunity. I'm ranting but I wanted to voice my
opinion and give a good long shout from the top of the
e-mountain..."HELP!" please feel free to email me with any
comments.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 17 2002 @ 05:16 AM
PST
It seems to me that 'manarchist' is
a word which has a meaning which most any anarchist male using it is
recovering from. The idea that there is a cure-all for any man's
sexism and patriarchy is idealistic and utopian (not meaning bad,
just meaning not likely anytime soon), and we can not change others
or some larger abstract society, but must work to change ourselves,
knowing no change will ever complete a person, nor be complete
within that person. I am frusterated. I am a young white (mostly)
male and I want to be an ally to women, but I realize that I do
fucked up patriarchal sexist shit. I want to stop doing these
things, but I feel as have no community to support me in these
efforts. If I appeal to men for help, it feels as if I am excluding
women and obviously being sexist and patriachal, typical manarchist
behavior. If I appeal to women for help, it feels as if I am
'getting in their way', not 'shutting the fuck up', that my very
approach will be ill-worded or ill-timed, inappropriate and/or
somehow sexist, labled and dismissed as manarchist. Asking males,
females and genderqueer people together seems to start nothing but
arguements that never end. I have many questions and I want to learn
how I can change myself from the inside out to be constantly less
sexist and patriarchal, but admitting to and wanting to talk about
my own personal sexist behavior seems to get me nothing but lablels,
dismissal and exclusion. Yes, according to the loose definition of
manarchist, I am, and I dont even know if I can say for sure that
I'm recovering, though I'd like to. I am a manarchist. NOW WHAT?
Talk to women? I found out the hard way that women, like men, can be
judgemental and dismissive. When I bring up a particular sexist act
or comment I made, or a train of thought which i suspect of being
patriarchal, there is no one, male, female or off the gender map who
even seems to notice my realization of those patriarchal roots or
pointing me in the direction of other realizations (is it selfish,
sexist, patriarchal or 'manarchist' of me to want this kind of
support?). I recive condemnation and condescending remarks instead
of support, and often enough recive exclusion. I need teachers and
healers, not judges. Maybe I'm just a slow learner, but thats no
reason for giving up on me. I make mistakes I am human like you and
I am trying to learn. I am a shy and often quiet person and it is
hard enough to ask for help, knowing I'll probably be judged for
actions and patterns I now realize to be both personally and
generally wrong, but then you add on this label, this catagory where
I am able to be filed away and dismissed without learning
anything... I want communication and open honest people, not slang
terms. I realized I will be judged for my past, but that wont stop
me from working to make my future to be better for all involved,
which could be you. If I came off here as slightly bitter or naieve,
maybe it's because I am. I wanna try harder and I dont know how and
it seems like everyone's to busy or scared or disgusted to help. I
think there are alot of people like me who are struggling with this
and are who not yet well versed in the history behind this struggle
(which is questionable in and of itself since it's led us here), but
feel that they want to and can be stronger allies for women, given
more wisdom and opportunity. I'm ranting but I wanted to voice my
opinion and give a good long shout from the top of the
e-mountain..."HELP!" please feel free to email me with any
comments.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 27 2002 @ 03:51 PM
PST
Ok. This really isn't a response to
anyone else's comment, just my own. The problem I see with
"manarchism" is that it's completely backwards. U don't make a white
man feel comfortable with women by sticking them in a room full of
white men, u stick them in a room with women. U don't make a racist
feel comfortable with african americans by sticking them in a room
with a bunch of racists, u stick them in a room with a bunch of
african americans. It's like the old indian proverb: You have no
idea what I've dealt with until U've walked a mile in my mokisians.
Yea, I know that isn't exactly right and the spelling isn't perfect,
but u know what I mean. In order to understand another persons
plight, u have to walk in their situation. Until then, no guy will
understand a woman's perspective and no WOMAN will understand a
man's perspective!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 16 2003 @ 03:46 AM
PST
This article raises some excellent
points about the nature of feminism and anti sexism as it exists
today and the need for what I think is a more defined anti sexist
stance within any broadbased anti capitalist movement, but there are
also some points I take issue with, and one is the comment about the
number of white guys who show up at meetings. This seems a little
odd, to say the least. It seems that in many cases, a lack of
diversity within a group is seen somehow as a problem unto itself,
rather than a symptom of a larger underlying problem. If a group
does not have diversity in it, is it because of domineering, or is
it a well intentioned but gross error on the part of activist
culture to respond to the actual needs and desires of the oppressed?
One could make an argument that "the left" is just as fractured
along lines of class as it is of gender or skin pigmentation. As
far as the behaviour described at demos, I am in concurrence to a
degree. I think confrontation is extremely important, but many
people go about it in a way that is very self defeating, and alot of
this does extend from a certain machismo. I think all too often,
however, this argument devolves to the point where confrontation is
criticized unto itself, rather than in its tactical employment. I
know many anarchist women who are very supportive of confrontational
and uncompromising street action. To masculinize violence or
confrontational tactics, which I believe certain critiques of the
"manarchist" tendency do, is to set a dangerous and self defeating
precedent unto itself.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 09 2003 @ 01:24 PM
PST
okay, non, so first you call us
feminists "whiners" and say that sexism is just okay, (gee, i guess
black people back in the 1800s should have just stopped "whining"
and lived with slavery too, huh?) and that we should deal with it.
Then, you say that we should come up with tactics that fight sexism
in a logical way (what would that be, non, would your method be
forcing women to all have babies and shut up when people don't agree
with them?). You anti-feminist morons contradict yourselves all the
time. Why don't you just admit that you people are misogynist
bastards! Stupid little fuck. -Lara
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 09 2003 @ 01:40 PM
PST
May ask why the hell anyone would
want to change their genitals in the first place? It honestly sounds
stupid (but that doesn't mean in any way that i dislike trasnsexuals
or that i am heterosexist). What I'm saying is that people who
change their sex are sexist or reverse sexist because they feel
inadequate with a penis or vagina. This seems to point towards an
attitude that holds that your character and worth as an individual
are based on what reproductive organs you have (this is what the
patriarchy is based on). But, if transsexuals are doing it for the
sake of liking anal/vaginal penetration more than having a penis and
doing the penetration, then I can understand. -Lara
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 09 2003 @ 01:46 PM
PST
I most definitely agree with you
stacy, that's exactly what I was thinking but I couldn't put it into
words, i think dadanarchist and several others actually made really
good points in response to this article. It's a very progressive,
motivating article, but it does tend to say that "well, because
you're a man and you made this action, the action is inevitably
sexist" this is wrong, because i'm a woman and I can be aggressive
too, and that doesn't mean I'm sexist against men and that it's a
particularly "feminine" trait. -Lara
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 09 2003 @ 02:10 PM
PST
Tim i totally agree. Nature
arguments regarding the sexes and behavior are another tactic of
sexism to put thought constraints on women and men. It's like saying
that people in China behave differently in situations than Americans
because it's genetic. And that's ridiculous. Never ever try to
excuse your actions and not take resposibility for how you behave by
saying that men and women are naturally different. The arugment is
an excuse for gender roles. What matters is the individual, not the
sex. -Lara
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 09 2003 @ 02:24 PM
PST
oh really, inza? Since when? Any
kind of prejudice against anyone based on sex or race is wrong. Yes,
it's true that sexism, in our modern context, is usually pitted
against women. And I can understand when women make a few jokes
about men who are sexist, or some blacks make a few jokes about
whites who are racist. But to say that racism and sexism are ALWAYS
prejudice plus privilege is just ignorant. There are minorities who
terrible things about their whole race, and your comment implies
that women can't be sexist (towards women) and minorities can't be
racist (against minorities) That's such a crock of shit! So I guess
that just makes it okay for a hispanic to go and kill all whites
because some of them did him/her wrong? If you like to hang on to
stupid abstractions like that and base your pathetic hatred on them,
go ahead. I just think you made an irritably stupid
comment. -Lara.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 12:36 AM
PST
so many things: a) sexism vs.
patriarchy (day to day actions vs. underlying ideology?) b) identity
politics (someone is always "the bitch" whether it's women or
trannies or people-of-color or working class people or, in certain
"enlightened" circles, the racist, the homophobe, etc... although OF
COURSE behavior is different from identity - frequently behavior
gets reified into identity, i.e. people are not allowed/presumed to
change, grow, learn...) c) the article raises the question of
intent, and how do we measure intent? Any action promoted as a way
to combat oppression, can be taken as way to increase/ignore
oppression, so how do we know when it's one or the other? By knowing
each other...? which leads us to d) traci and heather are both part
of an organization that has gotten critiqued for not integrating
feminism into its theory (so is this the response? is traci going on
the attack as a way to get some feminist credentials? how will
Phoenix respond? tune in next week, same time same channel).
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.