Nopretence post-action statement
Published:
June 16, 2009 11:54
by
nopretence
Neighbourhoods:
On Sunday, June 7th a group of anarcha-feminists took the Stage at the Anarchist Conference 09 to protest about sexist oppression within the movement. They projected a film and read out a statement.
Their actions went on to provoke a huge response - with comments ranging from undiluted misogyny to militant solidarity.
The misogyny provided more examples of the sexism we all battle with when we try and make our voices heard. Such attitudes make the prospect of fighting back more intimidating, but also increasingly urgent.
From the audience:
"Are you going to do a sexy dance for us?"
And online:
A wrote: "Bear, was there any hotties present."
“B wrote: a few. one of the radical feminists who disrupted it, and who I know looked really cute in black hoodie."
These comments are undeniably sexist, but hierarchical social relations cannot be reduced to personal insults or behaviour. Sexism thrives upon subtle and intangible processes which make gender domination and exploitation endemic.
Those responses to the action which asked, 'why did you take the mic from a woman?', 'why did you not include the woman at Speakers' Corner?', 'why did you criticise a poster designed by a woman?' were missing the point. For any focus we put on the numerical dominance of men is only a detail within our broader perspective on the institutionalised power arrangements reproduced and upheld by patriarchy. These can continue to operate in situations where a woman is taking the lead.
So the attempts in our film and text to expose and delegitimate prescribed gender roles must be seen within our larger analysis of gender oppression.
We are not fighting a battle between men and women, but one against the divisive gender labels that people remain obstinately attached to.
Consequently, we reject the conception of a binary male-female relationship, in which sexist relations are always characterised by a male oppressor acting upon a female victim. We call for a rejection of liberal feminism's simplistic attempts to define and reform the oppressive system we want destroyed.
The action wasn't intended to be an attack on particular groups, or on the conference itself - it was meant to be a wake-up call to the
movement as a whole, to bring sexism to light and to provoke debate and action around how gendered power is imposed.
Where particular groups are represented in the film this is because their visual material can be used to indicate wider sexism in the movement, not because they are more sexist than other groups.
The intervention was not carried out by pre-existing groups and should not be credited to particular individuals. Those who made it happen are strongly committed to responding to and facing its consequences, but are acting in the knowledge that it could have been carried out by so many others. By those who followed them as they left the conference, by those who responded from movements outside of the UK, by those who emailed to say that they had faced sexism in the movement for years and never had the confidence to express it. It is being carried out by all those who have shown solidarity.
NOT THE FINAL WORD
With those who want freedom from hierarchical systems, we should continue to meet, debate, fight, organise, write.
We call for critiques and improvements of our action. We call for a queering of our text. We call for new texts.
Claim this action as your own. Change it, fuck with it, and keep fighting forward.
Additions
castrate me?
Published: June 17, 2009 13:44
by
hewhodaresfindsomewomenattractive
'' A wrote: "Bear, was there any hotties present."
“B wrote: a few. one of the radical feminists who disrupted it, and who I know looked really cute in black hoodie."
These comments are undeniably sexist ''
i disagree. they are not. the first comment from the audience was yes. but those 2 comments are not, or are men (and men who are feminists) no longer allowed to find women attractive and comment on it? even if it is commenting on feminists who've hijacked a conference? if so, i will cease to call myself a feminist.
Re: castrate me?
Published: June 17, 2009 15:30
by
Man
> are men (and men who are feminists) no longer allowed to find women attractive and comment on it?
There's nothing wrong with finding women attractive, or with commenting on it in the appropriate time & place, but we're talking about a comment made online as part of a public political discussion. It is sexist to derail discussions of womens' political action into physical attractiveness.
The comment from 'A' is perhaps even more clearly sexist. Not having been there, and with no prospect of ever knowingly meeting these anonymous women in future, he still feels the need to focus on the women's attractiveness to men.
another stupid title that tries to be provocative
Published: June 18, 2009 08:48
by
emasculator
When womin do a feminist action as intervention in radical politics to change the sexism we experience every day, making loud, public comments about their looks and attractiveness is putting them back in "their place", is reaffirming that womin are first and foremost sex objects to be looked at and judged by men. So yes at that place and time those comments are sexist. Maybe not intentionally so, but if they were meant as compliments, the guys making them need to read some books, do some thinking, and discuss with comrades who have done a bit more reflection on this type of thing.
Latest articles feed
On Anonymity
There are 3 instances in which anonymity have been criticised during the course of this action and its aftermath : Firstly, people have criticised those involved for masking up and physically concealing their identities, with accusations that they didn’t want to engage in proper debate, and were even being cowardly. Secondly, the same people have been criticised for continuing to conceal their identities during the aftermath of the action - some people seem to have felt uncomfortable with the fact that no single identifiable group of people have come forward to claim this action as ‘theirs’. Thirdly, there have been criticisms directed towards individuals on various forums for ‘hiding behind’ aliases and not being ’honest’ about their ‘true identities’.
All of these responses completely fail to recognise the strength that lies in anonymity – it is both purposeful and strategic, and has been throughout time. Anonymity acts to defy authorities and agents of the state in their rabid accumulation of identity-data. It also acts as a protective mechanism to shield individuals against latent prejudices and discrimination that they would otherwise be the targets of. Having read the extremely misogynistic, sexist, prejudiced, insulting, narrow-minded and defensive responses to the action and the comments posted thereafter, it comes as no surprise that many should want to conceal their identity for the purpose of self-protection against such negative and abusive sentiment.
Just as Anarchism defies the notion of property, so Anonymity defies the principles of ownership and laying claim to an action as ‘belonging’ to a certain group, instead allowing for the action to resonate far beyond the group itself and its immediate audience, reaching out to a far wider forum than it might do otherwise. The ‘ownership’ of an action is often guided by the pre-occupation with the reputation and ‘image’ of a particular group, often for the purpose of recruiting more numbers, and selling themselves as a product to be consumed by others. Should this really be prioritised above the strength, clarity and purpose of the action itself?
Let’s not fall prey to the kapitalist mindset that would see actions as things we can claim as our own for recruitment purposes or used to sell a copyrighted political brand. This action clearly aimed to generate an idea and a call that would not just be limited to, or be the property of, one group of people, but could be disseminated and taken on by so many others for them to do with it as they freely choose, to inspire discussion, debate, solidarity, support, and further action.