Sexist oppression within the movement

[Pawn Power]

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, both of which you can find below.

This is what was said.

“We make no pretence. This is a conference by and for anarchists. And by anarchists, we mean those opposed to the state, all forms of nationalism, capitalism, sexual/race/gender oppression and all forms of exploitation and domination,” Anarchist Movement Conference 09 Call Out

This is our response.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJfsYzzHh0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnopretence.wordpress.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

http://nopretence.wordpress.com/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://nopretence.wordpress.com/)


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, both of which you can find below.

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.
June 15, 2009




Film and Statement

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what was said.

“We make no pretence. This is a conference by and for anarchists. And by anarchists, we mean those opposed to the state, all forms of nationalism, capitalism, sexual/race/gender oppression and all forms of exploitation and domination,” Anarchist Movement Conference 09 Call Out

This is our response.

We have taken this space and projected this short film to show how we see sexism in ‘the movement’ and sexism in capitalist society. We have covered our faces in the same way we might do against the state and its agents – inspired by the tradition of our militant sisters who took back male-dominated stages, and political spaces.

We expect hostility, intimidation and greater surveillance after our action. Covering up makes it easier to communicate. And we know that our message is much bigger than the messenger herself. The following text is our response to the four themes of the conference.

MOVEMENT or why we aren’t one

No matter how much we aspire to be ‘self-critical’ there is a clear lack of theorising and concrete action around sexism, homophobia and racism in the anarchist movement. We do not feel that the content and structure of the conference deal with gender and we’re tired of asking for space – we’re taking it ourselves.

You want to talk about history? Let’s stop pretending that feminism is a short blip in the history of political struggles. The feminism you know may be the one that has been dominated by white middle-class liberal politics – NOT the struggles and pockets of revolutionary resistance missing from our political pamphlets and ‘independent’ media. The feminism of Comandanta Yolanda, of bell hooks, of Anzaldua, of Mbuya Nehanda, of Angela Davis, of Rote Zora, of Mujeres Libres…

CLASS or is anybody out there?

We are all oppressed by the class system, but there is nobody ‘out there’ who isn’t also oppressed by white supremacy, imperialism, heterosexism, patriarchy, ableism, ageism…Pretending these systems don’t exist or can be subsumed into capitalist oppression, doesn’t deal with the problem, it just silences those people most oppressed by them, and allows for the continuing domination of these systems over our lives.

We are tired of being told that anarchists don’t need to be feminists, because ‘anarchism has feminism covered’. This is just a convenient way of forgetting the reality of gender oppression, and so ignoring the specifics of the struggle against it.

RESISTANCE or are we futile?

If the anarchist movement doesn’t recognize the power structures it reproduces, its resistance will be futile. For as well as fighting sexism ‘out there’ we must fight sexism ‘in here’ and stop pretending that oppressive systems disappear at the door of the squat or the social centre. Only a movement that understands and fights its own contradictions can provide fertile ground for real and effective resistance.

Ask yourselves this – do you believe sexism exists within the movement? When a woman comrade says she’s experienced sexual abuse or assault from a male comrade – what do you think? That it’s an individual or an isolated case? Or that it can happen – and disproportionately to women – because there is a system which allows it to develop and gives it life? Can we honestly say that our own autonomous spaces do not play a part in upholding this system?

Ask yourselves this – Why do fewer women speak in meetings? Because they think less? What is the gender of the factory worker? Why do more women do the washing up and run creches at meetings/events? What is the gender of the carer at home?

Now tell us if you believe sexism exists: tell us why men rape; why more women are battered than men; why more women are used by the state to do free and unwaged work. Tell us – are you a feminist?

We believe that in the anarchist movement, the strongest evidence of sexism lies in the choice we’re told to make between ‘unity’ and what-they-call ‘separatism’, between fighting the state and fighting sexism. Fuck that! We refuse to be seen as stereotypes of ‘feminists’ you can consume – like fucking merchandise in the capitalist workplace.

IDEAS INTO REALITY and what’s in between?

There will be no future for the anarchist movement if it doesn’t also identify as an anarcha-feminist movement. Anarcha-feminist organisational structures must exist within the movement to make anarcha-feminism an integral part of it. And you don’t need to identify as a woman to be an anarcha-feminist – every anarchist should be able to participate in the struggle against sexism.
The state’s incursion into our private lives and the relationship between sexuality and productivity from which it profits affects people of all genders. The gender binary system violently allocates us roles on the basis of our anatomy. A refusal to accept even these basic precepts will be a great hindrance to the movement.

You ask, ‘Can we find common cause despite our differences?’. We will only find common cause if we recognize that our differences are structured by numerous oppressive systems, and together fight to end each of these systems, wherever we find them.

Our feminisms must be plural, they must be anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic. Our inspiration must come from the actions of feminists who have helped self-identified women reach revolutionary consciousness.
Our feminisms must be revolutionary.

Final word

You can pretend we didn’t come here, pretend nothing was said.
You can purposefully misunderstand us.
Or you can ask yourselves why we came, what we meant, and whether we’ll come back again.I'm interested to here from anyone who was at the conference- audience/ your groups response, reaction, etc. For others, do you think sexism is problem in your organizations?

I don't want this thread to become a critique of every little thing in the video but discussion of the message and point of this action and video.

[Pogue]

I thought it was inuslting to us all that they felt a need to enter in such a stupid fashion and treat us all like idiots.

I've never experienced sexism in any of the organisations I'm in. I've heard tales of some odd things happening which have shocked me, and believe me this issue has been discussed by members of anarchist organisations in this country following this event.

I've never seen or experienced any actual sexism, and I think any issues with the under-representation of women in the movement shows sexism in wider society that may prevent more women from getting involved as opposed to any sexism on the part of my comrades. So I, as with many other people, found the approach this group took to be ridiculous, attention seeking and insulting. They could have just brought this to the table, discussed it with us, or simply asked to be able to bring this issue up. I highly doubt they would have been refused or turned down.

If any issues of sexism emerged in any groups I am in I'd expect them to be dealt with promptly because its not acceptable, luckily I've never experienced any sexism in my involvement with other anarchists.

[jake williams]

Part of me says that any attempt to immediately downplay or block out what they're saying is perpetuating the very real issues they're raising. But frankly, I really don't agree: I just don't think the underrepresentation of women in sections of the Left is much the fault of the Left itself, but of the general society we exist in. Yes, there is sexism, but really almost anyone who's involved with any depth is conscious of this and permanently works to fight against it. And it's working. Sexism in the Left is an issue that the Left is working on and gradually dealing with.

[AntifaAustralia]

Sexism is definitely apparent within society, even in the most advanced democratic nations. But nonetheless, much has been changed, but more must be done.

More awareness needs to be spread, and spread with solidarity with the left, the right definitely do not care about such discrimination issues.

[yuon]

...

I've never experienced sexism in any of the organisations I'm in. I've heard tales of some odd things happening which have shocked me, and believe me this issue has been discussed by members of anarchist organisations in this country following this event.

I've never seen or experienced any actual sexism, and I think any issues with the under-representation of women in the movement shows sexism in wider society that may prevent more women from getting involved as opposed to any sexism on the part of my comrades. ...

If any issues of sexism emerged in any groups I am in I'd expect them to be dealt with promptly because its not acceptable, luckily I've never experienced any sexism in my involvement with other anarchists.
(I haven't watched the video, nor do I know about the conference being discussed. Dial up is shit.)
I'm guessing you are a man yes? You might not notice examples of sexism in your groups, because of this. It might be something like, women always doing the cleaning up. It might be men doing the majority of the talking (time how long men and women speak at your next meeting, compare to the number of men and women there).
There are lots of little things that men might not notice, or even women might not notice, that still are that way because of sexism. It doesn't have to be as blatant as most of the men insulting a woman for some opinion, and then agreeing with the man who says the same thing immediately after.

Because of sexism in the wider society, everyone has baggage they might not realise. Be a man, admit that maybe, unknowingly, you are perpetuating stereotypes that are harmful to gender equality. (Of course, equally, you may not be, but at least admit the possibility.)

[mel]

I wasn't at the conference, and I don't have an organization anywhere near my area, so insofar as that is concerned I can't really comment, but my initial reaction to the video was that, in trying to make a point (and given comments in this thread and elsewhere that they have not witnessed this sort of thing happening), they may have been very selective about which pictures they showed. In every organization, and at every conference, I'd imagine that there are far more women without children with them than there were women holding children like the picture in the video. Furthermore: why is a woman holding a child a bad thing? There are a thousand reasons a woman could have a child with her at a conference. She might be a single mother, she might have wanted to have her child with her. The child's father might not have been an anarchist. A woman with a child is not an indication that somebody thinks that watching the children is "her place" or any other inane attitude like that.

As for speakers, I couldn't tell if the people speaking were volunteers or people that had been brought in specifically to speak at the conference. If they were volunteers, were there women who had volunteered to speak that weren't given a microphone? Were there any women that did volunteer to speak? Were there many women speakers that were not shown because the creators of the video were attempting to make a point? I do not deny that sexism is still alive and well and that sexist attitudes pervade culture, but I do doubt that things are as bad within the movement as the video suggests, for a variety of reasons.

[Jack]

Most of the video of the Anarchist Movement part of that comes from places where I know for a fact there was an open mic. If women didn't get up there that just means no women wanted to, not that they were prohibited.

[mel]

Most of the video of the Anarchist Movement part of that comes from places where I know for a fact there was an open mic. If women didn't get up there that just means no women wanted to, not that they were prohibited.

That was the impression I got, glad to know my suspicions were likely correct.

[Jack]

That was the impression I got, glad to know my suspicions were likely correct.

I know we're likely to get chastised for that...

Anyways, I think it's really nitpicking. There's much more obvious sexism out there, but it seems they're too lazy or don't care enough to attack that and instead look inside the movement, dividing it.

I'm not argueing against feminism, just these particular ones.

[yuon]

Most of the video of the Anarchist Movement part of that comes from places where I know for a fact there was an open mic. If women didn't get up there that just means no women wanted to, not that they were prohibited.
(Still haven't seen the video.)
Maybe there were women who wanted to, but didn't feel comfortable getting up? Maybe there were just simply more men than women, and that was why?

Why would no women want to get up and speak at an open mic? Because they thought that they would not get a good reception?

Just wondering why all the women didn't want to get up there. Maybe they just needed to grow some balls? (Tongue firmly in cheek there.)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there are a couple of things going on here:

1) I agree with Haywood about the way this issue was brought up. Their form of presentation may have to do with groups or individuals feeling alienated from the organizations and structure of some of the main groups - I can't speculate beyond that because I don't know what the situation is like in the UK. But when I was first becoming politically active I was attracted to anarchism and felt very shut out by the cliquishness and lifestyle-ism of some of the less outward-looking groups.

So there could be a problem in the UK groups that is making people feel alienated and like they don't have a voice. If I were talking to them I would have suggested making a much more inclusive presentation where they identify how they think sexism should be taken-on by anarchists both within left movements and in society as a whole. Their presentation, on the other hand seemed to suggest that male comrades were the source of the problem rather than people who might be sympathetic and allies of a fight against sexism.

2) The absolute lack of a real women's liberation movement (at least is huge sucking void here in the US) is causing real anger and frustration among radicalized and radicalizing women.

A lot of the above video focused on sexually degrading images of women so this makes me think that the real anger at the movement stems from the perception that them movement is not doing anything (or at least not enough) to combat sexism rather than anger at the movement for being sexist.

As a socialist I've heard similar things although not directed at any left groups in particular. Most of the anti-sexist actions I've been a part of are connected to abortion rights and so on and many allies and comrades have expressed frustration that this is just a small part of fighting for women's lib.

It's true, abortion is just the tip of the iceberg for both health rights reproductive rights and certainly for women's rights in the US. But with the left so small right now, all actions are picked stratigically - I would like to see a movement against all prisons, but I have only participated in protests against the death penalty and against 3 strikes because those are the starting places.

So if I were in one of the anarchist organizations that put on the conference I would want to come up with a responce to the video which outlined how sexism is a real serious issue in society and that radicals are determined to make sure their their organizations do not reflect this sexism - then, more importantly, outline a plan of action for how to combat sexism and ideas about how to build a renewed movement for Women's liberation.

Lastly, radical Anarchism (and Socialism) has a long history of battleing sexism and it reminds me of a quote about early strike by the IWW in the US - the local newspapers were attacking the strike leaders for using the women worker's as "human shields" by allowing female workers on the picket lines. A female striker responded something to the effect: the bosses claim that the union is forcing women to the front lines in the battle with the police, the reality is that the union just doesn't hold us back.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Hmmm, every discussion I've had of this has turned into a huge argument...but anyway, I think the fundamental thing to bear in mind here is that if you're not a member of the oppressed group, it's not up to you to decide whether someone else is facing oppression or not. If no-one's complaining, then fine, but when someone else directly complains that they're experiencing sexism, you don't get to brush it under the carpet and say that they're just making it up, or too sensitive, or whatever.

I wasn't at the conference, and I don't have an organization anywhere near my area, so insofar as that is concerned I can't really comment, but my initial reaction to the video was that, in trying to make a point (and given comments in this thread and elsewhere that they have not witnessed this sort of thing happening), they may have been very selective about which pictures they showed.
The movement is male-dominated. That's my experience of it. It's less male-dominated than society as a whole, but our aim isn't to be slightly less shit than society as a whole, it's to not be shit.

I do not deny that sexism is still alive and well and that sexist attitudes pervade culture, but I do doubt that things are as bad within the movement as the video suggests, for a variety of reasons.


I don't want this thread to become a critique of every little thing in the video but discussion of the message and point of this action and video.
Critiquing the techniques used are easy; actually dealing with the issues raised is hard, but necessary.

Anyways, I think it's really nitpicking. There's much more obvious sexism out there, but it seems they're too lazy or don't care enough to attack that and instead look inside the movement, dividing it.

Half the video was given over to examples of sexism by the state! We're all aware of the more obvious sexism, so drawing our attention to it is a bit pointless; and if comrades in the movement are made to feel inferior because of their gender, then the movement's already divided. Fighting sexism inside and outside the movement isn't an either/or thing, you can do both.

[Aeval]

(Still haven't seen the video.)
Maybe there were women who wanted to, but didn't feel comfortable getting up? Maybe there were just simply more men than women, and that was why?

Why would no women want to get up and speak at an open mic? Because they thought that they would not get a good reception?

Just wondering why all the women didn't want to get up there. Maybe they just needed to grow some balls? (Tongue firmly in cheek there.)

Or maybe it's because the whole of society is telling them to shut up and be nice? If you keep telling someone that they are worth less than someone else and that they should just be quiet then just because one day you turn around and go, 'oh actually, we're all equal now!' it doesn't mean that person's suddenly going to feel confident enough to speak up, especially when the whole rest of society is still telling them they're inherently inferior.

So you're not sexist and women are allowed to talk in your group? Well bully for you. Doesn't change the fact that many won't feel comfortable doing so, especially as a lot of people on the left seem to be gobshites (I mean that in the nicest possible way :) ) people in general who are quieter may feel less able to speak up and a lot of women will be in that group. I'm not saying people should baby them, but just bare it in mind, just because you say everyone can speak doesn't mean all those who want to speak will do so. And clearly some people feel it is an issue, else they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of doing all that, and they are standing up and saying so, so I'd say the fact that they feel able to wade in to conference like that shows they think people will take what they're saying on board, which is kinda a compliment really; if they thought the movement was just inherently sexist they'd probably just leave.

Also, strangely enough, noone I spoke to who was actually there had a massive problem with it, the only people I've seen stressing about it are those who've heard about it through the internet.

[TC]

I'm totally unsurprized by sexist anarchists responses to accusations of sexism here.

When sexism is not 'experienced' by men in these contexts, its not due to the absence of sexism, but because they only subjectively experience interactions as sexist when they rise to a level of overt and explicit sexism that most can restrain themselves from. What they miss out on is experience of the subtle but real status dynamics that devalue and undermine female participation in these environments by consistently treating them as lower status within the informal (unarticulated but none the less, recognizable) social hierarchy. Its the 'little things' that add up, the sum of total interactions not blatant comments, and these 'little things' consistently reduce high status males and entail that women must make more effort to participate than their male counterparts.

You might be attuned to overt sexism (though I've seen *plenty* in my interaction with anarchists so I doubt that you guys are) but you are clearly not sensitive to the degree that women have to work harder in these (and most contexts) to get the same level of recognition. In part its made worse by the anarchist refusal to properly analyze their own internal hierarchy: just because you don't give your leaders titles or hold them democratically accountable, doesn't mean they aren't defacto leaders.

A further problem is that anarchists tend to try to address this not by critically analyzing their own behavior (look at this thread as an example!) but through tokenism, dismissals, and references to those cool women who play along with the boys in ways that affirm their manarchist pride. This actually entrenches rather than addresses the problem. I'm sure this very post will be dismissed in ways that will prove my point (people will reference tokens and insist that their female comrades say otherwise, or some anarchist woman will take the opportunity to be that cool girl who makes the guys feel good by denying that she experiences sexism). Thats fine, if you want to do that then you aren't the intended audience of the post, the intended audience are people who want to think critically about this issue rather than running to the easiest defenses so they don't have to think about it at all.

[mel]

What they miss out on is experience of the subtle but real status dynamics that devalue and undermine female participation in these environments by consistently treating them as lower status within the informal (unarticulated but none the less, recognizable) social hierarchy. Its the 'little things' that add up, the sum of total interactions not blatant comments, and these 'little things' consistently reduce high status males and entail that women must make more effort to participate than their male counterparts.

What informal social hierarchy, and are you sure that it is interactions with anarchists that cause females to feel that they are "lower status" than males, or interactions with society at large that cause them to feel that way, feelings which cannot simply be left "at the door" when entering into an interaction with anarchists.

I'm not an anarchist, and I'm not a part of the movement so I really cannot speak to the empirical reality of the situation here, but it just seems to me that in a group which is highly attuned to issues of sexism (and I make no comment as to whether or not such a group exists) if there is anything that can be done to make females feel like equally valuable members of the group if society has already conditioned them to believe that they are lower status? Is the informal social hierarchy a result of actions of anarchists or a reflection of the society as a whole? If it is a reflection of society as a whole, and anarchists make every effort to make it clear that all members are equally valuable, then how can they prevent some or even many females from feeling that they are lower status than their male group members if that feeling is a result of societal conditioning and not the group as a whole? It is difficult to express what I mean here, but I hope I'm being clear...there is a complex and subtle social interaction at play and I'm not really sure how to express my meaning.

In my mind, I do not see how a group, no matter how highly attuned to issues of sexism they are, can avoid the introduction of a subtle, informal social hierarchy if the feelings of lower status are conditioned by society at large. Do you have any practical suggestions of what different groups might be able to do to eliminate feelings of lower-status among female members short of restructuring the entire society which led females to have this belief in the first place? Is there anything a group (anarchist or otherwise) can do to make female members feel that they have equal status in a society which by and large makes them feel otherwise?

[Module]

I haven't read every single post in this thread but the ones I have read, such as the first response, really are just weak crap.
I've never seen or experienced any actual sexismWell evidently the women who made this video have. Maybe you just didn't notice it because you're not in a position where it's going to matter to you? Where you'll notice a short straw getting handed to you, and therefore don't see it getting handed to anybody else? Or maybe you just don't notice it getting handed to anybody else because any inequalities are, as you put it, "wider sexism", so nothing you would see as terribly remarkable?

I'll tell you the problem with some leftists I've encountered, the sort of which is probably quite overrepresented in this thread here;
Being a 'leftist', an "anarchist" or a "social progressive" isn't some political position where consistencies and practical applications of one's views and ideals are genuinely sought, but it is, instead, a social identity. A sort of subculture, a declaration of who and what somebody considers themselves.
So when somebody suggests, for example when these here women suggest, that these people can make personal changes, to improve the movement or one's own awareness of the social implications of their attitudes and actions which they may take for granted.. these 'leftists' find it "insulting". A attack on them as a person. How dare you suggest that you experience sexism in the company of my friends and I. We're leftists, *****! Don't you see the patches on my pants?! That makes you wrong.

If this video was about non-white members of the anarchist movement, however, the reception might be a little different; I doubt we'd see anybody calling it "attention seeking" (that kind of response is quite typical to male views on women's issues; see video - whinge, moan, complain).
But then that's because being accepted as anti-racist is a core part of calling oneself an 'anarchist'! Anti-sexist? Well, not so much. I mean, sure, in theory... but in practice the self image of an anarchist 'revolutionary' is borderline machismo. All black, bandanas and blowing shit up.
Note the nit-picking here.

In every organization, and at every conference, I'd imagine that there are far more women without children with them than there were women holding children like the picture in the video. Furthermore: why is a woman holding a child a bad thing? There are a thousand reasons a woman could have a child with her at a conference. She might be a single mother, she might have wanted to have her child with her. The child's father might not have been an anarchist. A woman with a child is not an indication that somebody thinks that watching the children is "her place" or any other inane attitude like that.Of course there are going to be far more women without children with them than with children at a conference. It's not a fucking daycare center, it's a conference. The point no doubt of showing that image, (and I'm sure they were selective with the images that they chose - they chose the images to illustrate the point they were making. Sorry, what else would you expect them to do?) is to bring up the point that within the anarchist movement women still take on the majority of the child care responsibilities. What's wrong with a woman holding a child? Nothing's wrong with it. Just like nothing's wrong with a woman doing the dishes, nothing's wrong with a woman cleaning up. The point is that there is something wrong with women disproportionately having to deal with childcare, at "conferences" and in the home.
The whole "what's wrong with a woman holding a child" response is reminicent of the anti-feminist line I've personally heard a thousand times before; "But some women like being housewives!"
The fact you've attempted to list a ton of reasons why that individual woman was holding a child in the picture as an excuse to brush off the no doubt perfectly valid and relevant point made by this video is enough for me to tell you to take a good hard look at yourself and the way in which you are responding to women's criticisms of sexism within the anarchist movement.
The excuses made within this thread are enough to totally validate the main point of the video in the OP - there are anarchists who participate in a movement for socio-economic equality and yet fail abysmally to look at, criticise and amend their own behaviour and the way in which they participate in the social hierarchies which they supposedly fight to destroy.

[mel]

Of course there are going to be far more women without children with them than with children at a conference. It's not a fucking daycare center, it's a conference.

That was kind of my point: it is not a daycare center, and a photo of an individual woman holding a child without context is not indicative of a trend that women in an anarchist movement have a disproportionate share of child-rearing repsonsibility. (though there is no doubt that this is the case in society at large, which we know from statistics, not from a picture of a woman on the street holding a baby) The fact that this is at a conference, and was a picture of just one woman holding just one child tells us absolutely nothing. There very well could have been men there holding children too. The point is that we do not know, and that snapping a shot of a woman holding a child at a conference doesn't indicate sexism. Certainly not in the same way that the shot of the whole kitchen full of only women working does.


The point no doubt of showing that image, (and I'm sure they were selective with the images that they chose - they chose the images to illustrate the point they were making. Sorry, what else would you expect them to do?) is to bring up the point that within the anarchist movement women still take on the majority of the child care responsibilities.

The point is that we can't know that from the picture they showed, and while I was not there, and am not a part of the anarchist movement, my original point was to ask if anybody else had any idea if this was actually the case.


What's wrong with a woman holding a child? Nothing's wrong with it. Just like nothing's wrong with a woman doing the dishes, nothing's wrong with a woman cleaning up. The point is that there is something wrong with women disproportionately having to deal with childcare, at "conferences" and in the home.

I agree that this is wrong, I just don't see how the photo they shot is indicative that "women disproportionally [have] to deal with childcare at conferences". If the conference had a daycare option run exclusively by women, I could see this being the case, but a woman holding a child can be indicative of thousands of different things and they provided no other evidence to suggest that "women disproportionally have to deal with childcare at conferences", except for a picture of a bunch of men who were not holding children. I'd imagine that they could have found another picture of a bunch of women not holding children too. My point was simply that from the video, I can't really tell if "women disproportionately have to deal with childcare at conferences" is true based on the information they've given me, and personal experience from others in this thread seems to have differed, but once again I am not a member of the movement and cannot be sure.


The whole "what's wrong with a woman holding a child" response is reminicent of the anti-feminist line I've personally heard a thousand times before; "But some women like being housewives!"
The fact you've attempted to list a ton of reason why that individual woman was holding a child in the picture as an excuse to brush off the no douby perfectly valid and relevant point made by this video is enough for me to tell you to take a good hard look at yourself and the way in which you are responding to women's criticisms of sexism within the anarchist movement.

I have no doubt that there might be, and probably is, some degree sexism within the anarchist movement. I don't think that complete gender equality is possible without a revolution, and in light of that there will be some subtle social hierarchies that may or may not be unavoidable. However, I have not yet seen anybody suggest ways in which members the anarchist movement (or any movement) might be able to change their behaviors to eradicate or mitigate the effects of this sexism in society at large. If anarchists live in a society which makes females feel as if they have less value than males, which leads them to feel that they are unable to speak up (even when explicitly invited to do so, although I do not know if this happens at these conferences or not because I do not attend) I am not sure what else can be done. I think that more men should most likely volunteer for kitchen and cleaning duties, and that women share a disproportionate amount of this work might be indicative of an attitude among men in this organization that those duties will be picked up by the women of the movement, and if this is happening then absolutely something needs to be done about it. I just don't think their point on the issue of childcare was one that was well-made, and I'm not sure that there is terribly much that can be done to make female anarchists feel more comfortable speaking at an open mic, but I'd be open to anybody making any suggestions in this particular regard, as I find it likely that women feeling uncomfortable speaking is most likely less a matter of any kind of disconduct or sexist attitudes among anarchists and more a matter of the attitude of society at large that devalues female contributions.

However, if you can imagine any specific examples of ways in which members of a leftist group might be able to make women feel more comfortable contributing in that fashion, I'm sure that many would be happy to have something which they can actually do about sexism in the movement, rather than being overloaded with criticism, with no suggestions for how to actually improve the specific situations in question.

[Sam_b]

I think that large sections of the movement completely negate a lot of the issues raised here because they say their rhetoric is inclusive and for women's liberation without looking at their groups as a whole. As some comrades have mentioned it is not surprising that women don't feel confident or able to get up on an open mic in front of a bunch of men. Unfortunately a lot of valid concerns and criticisms are simply dismissed as mere identity politics.

[TC]

What informal social hierarchy, and are you sure that it is interactions with anarchists that cause females to feel that they are "lower status" than males, or interactions with society at large that cause them to feel that way, feelings which cannot simply be left "at the door" when entering into an interaction with anarchists.

I'm not sure if you botched this reply by assembling cliche left-sociology sounding phrases as a rhetorical tactic or because you legitimately don't get it, but this post profoundly misunderstands mine.

Social hierarchy can either be explicit and formal, i.e., soldier salutes officer, both, when asked, say the soldier follows the officers orders. It can be implicit and informal, i.e. subaltern yields floor to superior more frequently than vice versa, subaltern allows superior to speak disproportionately and pays more attention to them when they do, group attributes more weight to superior's suggestions and opinions when making decisions, then to the subaltern's, and when a position is adopted, the superior is more likely to be understood as having a generative role and the subaltern less likely to receive social credit.

Unlike the soldier and the officer however, neither the subaltern nor the superior in an informal social hierarchy will openly acknowledge, when asked, if this is going on. In fact, no one else in the group will, and most will probably not even be able to articulate it, in part because its a taboo thing to recognize since it would undermine both of them: both would look worse, one for their deference, the other for their unjustifiable dominance.


and are you sure that it is interactions with anarchists that cause females to feel that they are "lower status" than males, or interactions with society at large that cause them to feel that way, feelings which cannot simply be left "at the door" when entering into an interaction with anarchists.

This has nothing to do with females 'feeling lower status', but with them *being lower status*, lower status in every way but title. I'm talking about the interactions between people *within* organizations and informal affinity groups that make decisions. You are treating 'society at large' as if its some discreet entity; it is not. Society is nothing but different interactions between people, including anarchists. Some interactions are pretty non-hierarchical such as those between friends or strangers who are similarly situated in socio-economic status and have no decisions to make (including gender, race, age, body type and nationality, as well as class, educational level, income). Others have formal hierarchy, like a military unit or business.

Most however have varying degrees of informal social hierarchy, and anarchist groups have more rather than less in my experience (and apparently a group of angry anarchist women whose actions are the subject of this thread!). In fairness I think most marxist-leninist and trotskyist organizations have an equal amount of informal social hierarchy but its less along gender lines then in anarchist groups.

[Glenn Beck]

I've never experienced sexism in any of the organisations I'm in.

You can't be fucking serious. Such a broad categorical denial really worries me.



If this video was about non-white members of the anarchist movement, however, the reception might be a little different. I doubt we'd see anybody calling it "attention seeking" (that kind of response is quite typical to male views on women's issues; see video - whinge, moan, complain).

You'd be surprised. But I'm sure sexism is a far worse problem than racism, since you don't have to personally experience the latter ;).

[TC]

Is the informal social hierarchy a result of actions of anarchists or a reflection of the society as a whole?

Its the result of anarchist behavior, and of course anarchists are part of society and they may have a tendency to reflect certain norms of social behavior. This is why we need to raise awareness of the behavior of creating these informal social hierarchy's along gendered lines, if we're to stop doing it.


If it is a reflection of society as a whole,

What do you even think that means? We're not talking about female anarchists emotions here, as you seem to think, which is by the way, totally sexist.



and anarchists make every effort to make it clear that all members are equally valuable,

Saying its the case, and making that a reality, are two totally different things. If they weren't then liberalism would have abolished racism and sexism in the 80s.


then how can they prevent some or even many females from feeling that they are lower status than their male group members if that feeling is a result of societal conditioning and not the group as a whole?

Male ananarchists can stop systmatically confering a lower social status to women within their groups.




You're not being clear. You seem however to be placing the sexism in anarchist circles squarely within the minds of women and blaming society rather than considering the interactions between men and women and the anarchists who are party to those interactions. You have in effect, taken a line to entrench rather than decostruct sexism within the movement.

[quote]Do you have any practical suggestions of what different groups might be able to do to eliminate feelings of lower-status among female members short of restructuring the entire society which led females to have this belief in the first place? Is there anything a group (anarchist or otherwise) can do to make female members feel that they have equal status in a society which by and large makes them feel otherwise?

My first suggestion would be to stop conceptualizing the problem as "feelings" in women who "have this belief" and who should be made to "feel they have an equal status in society."

It is extraordinarily sexist, patronizing, and male chauvinist.

[TC]

You'd be surprised. But I'm sure sexism is a far worse problem than racism, since you don't have to personally experience the latter ;).

Actually I would go so far to say that racism is a bigger problem than sexism, but sexism is a far more under recognized problem that makes people much more uncomfortable to talk about.

[eyedrop]

When sexism is not 'experienced' by men in these contexts, its not due to the absence of sexism, but because they only subjectively experience interactions as sexist when they rise to a level of overt and explicit sexism that most can restrain themselves from. What they miss out on is experience of the subtle but real status dynamics that devalue and undermine female participation in these environments by consistently treating them as lower status within the informal (unarticulated but none the less, recognizable) social hierarchy. Its the 'little things' that add up, the sum of total interactions not blatant comments, and these 'little things' consistently reduce high status males and entail that women must make more effort to participate than their male counterparts.

I support this and the rest of the post. I could always understand the theory of the viewpoint, but i couldn't really understand how it worked before i got a feminist girlfriend who constantly called me out on it every time I "subconsciously" acted sexist. It adds up, and it's foolish of so many people here to ignore it.

[TC]

I'll tell you the problem with some leftists I've encountered, the sort of which is probably quite overrepresented in this thread here;
Being a 'leftist', an "anarchist" or a "social progressive" isn't some political position where consistencies and practical applications of one's views and ideals are genuinely sought, but it is, instead, a social identity. A sort of subculture, a declaration of who and what somebody considers themselves.
So when somebody suggests, for example, when these here women suggest, that these people can make personal changes, to improve the movement or one's own awareness of the social implications of their attitudes and actions which they may take for granted.. these 'leftists' find it "insulting". A attack on them as a person. How dare you suggest that you experience sexism in the company of my friends and I.

I just wanted to highlight this point to make sure that it gets the attention it deserves because its truly insightful and useful. The whole post was really excellent though. Just wanted to further express my appreciation.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

That was kind of my point: it is not a daycare center, and a photo of an individual woman holding a child without context is not indicative of a trend that women in an anarchist movement have a disproportionate share of child-rearing repsonsibility. (though there is no doubt that this is the case in society at large, which we know from statistics, not from a picture of a woman on the street holding a baby) The fact that this is at a conference, and was a picture of just one woman holding just one child tells us absolutely nothing. There very well could have been men there holding children too. The point is that we do not know, and that snapping a shot of a woman holding a child at a conference doesn't indicate sexism. Certainly not in the same way that the shot of the whole kitchen full of only women working does.

It's a five-minute video. Of course it's not going to be subtle. If they were going to make something that accurately reflected all the nuances of the situation, it'd have lasted an hour and we'd all have been bored senseless. The point is not to nitpick at every aspect of the techniques used in the video, it's to decide whether or not it had a point (and I believe that it did), and, if so, to decide how we should react to it.

[mel]

Please forgive any disturbance I might have caused in this thread. I remain unable to express what I was trying to say and have decided to give up before making myself look like any more of an ass.

Please know that I was never attempting to suggest that oppression was "only in their heads" or that feelings of social inequality were invalid or unsubstantiated. I was just looking to find the reasons why these inequalities existed and what can be done about it, but I expressed myself poorly on an issue with a lot of subtleties and it is easy to cause confusion if you aren't extremely careful. I never meant to be or sound dismissive in any way, shape, or form.

[A_Ciarra]

This is a long post, sorry about that. I don't even care about this video much, this just ended up as a long post.

I have issues with the integrity of the video over all.

I know full well the point they wish to make, but within every struggle you utterly fail in your fight, if issues are not presented with sound logic and presented accurately. This video is a strategic blunder period. The real issues they are attempting to address are presented with irrationality and distortion, so frankly what message they do validly hold will be lost, along with dishing up some quagmire for them to sit in along the way.

I'd tell this group to start from scratch, and next time approach the presentation of such as no women speaking at the rallies fairly, so they don't end up in a tidious mud pit. Tedious to everyone involved.

None of this selective editing shit where shots of women speaking are left out and so on!

As another person said, "women are not being prohibited to speak at rallies," as this video full well implies. The issue is that it can be difficult for women to get up there because of the entire spectrum of cultural sexism factors. Any video, or fight needs to keep sound presentation of the issues in their scopes and refrain from venturing off into blatant misrepresentation on any level, or they are simply missing the target. And badly with this one.

None of this taking a stream of men speaking at rallies which they do not know on any well communicated philosophical level and do on!

If a man is fighting a good fight up on a podium, and he deeply cares about sexist issues, he should NEVER be used for squed propaganda purposes like was done in this video.

That's exploitation, and just as vile as sexism. Not to mention their are elements of unjust slander in here which can be just as unethical as sexism.

I could care less that sexism needs to be addressed - IF and WHEN at any point the people attempting to fight against it are going to enter into some pretty heavy violation, exploitation and slander of others. At that point the problem becomes them just as much as sexism, which they need to own up to without any immature bs. And I don't have the patience for immature bull shit.., this group of women would have to rise to meet a decent level of rational ethics and thinking themselves if they expect to make a good video worth any time or passing on. If I ran into them, I would tell them, "enough!"

I have huge issues with exploiting others in the hopes of adressing injustices, when the group presenting the issue is in fact being unjust themselves. When has any intercommunity battle ever been won by practicing what is hated? The makers of this particular video have a ways to go in their thinking before they can effectively address what they hope to without creating flack for themselves (that they will probably missidentify as sexism too, since they are not thinking all that clearly).

I don't think serious anti-sexist's out there need to waste time any real energy with this video. I'm not commenting on people here examining it at all, I'm saying this video is unproductive at best. The group that made this video (or single person) doesn't seem to have the maturity that can immiediatly move beyond the allready plentiful, yet ever worthless brow beating, settle and get down to down to some level headed actions or what not. Personaly I would breeze right past the group that made it and get on with the more rational groups that focus on education, over personal emotional catharthis. Some feminist groups ARE designed more for personal catharthis, while others on education. I skip the ones that want catharthis and practice that at the expense of others. The issue of sexism is just as important as capitalism and so on, but this video is kiddie shit. It feels like 8th grade level logic to me designed for releasing pain rather than "keeping it real."

That it's directed at anarchist's, I'm not sure if I care about their assertion. Again to prove, or even make a point that anarchists have heavy work to do reguarding sexism, you have to introduce your case logically and soundly, and that certainly isn't has not been done here. Sexism is everywhere, it's not exclusive to anarchist circles. Then I have the ask the question of motive. It's very possible that this group just wish''s to cause trouble. There seems more evidence for that, than working to put out any good feminist material.

[yuon]

I think that TC and Desrumeaux, in particular, have made my point much more elegantly than I was able to.
People might notice overt sexism, indeed, I hope that everyone does, and objects to it. However, non-overt sexism is, of course, harder to spot, and thus harder to object to. It's also easier to ignore, and dismiss as figments of someone's imagination. (I tried to give a big scenario here, but my imagination isn't good enough. One example might be the fact that women always seem to clean up, when the men keep talking into the night. Or is that too overt?)

Yeah, um, maybe ya'll need to think about the not so obvious sexism, that was the point I was trying to make in my first post.

[TC]

I'm not sure why pawn power didn't post this initially (and I hope he edits his post to include it now that I've posted this) but this is the actual statement that was read with the video showing in the background:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://nopretence.wordpress.com/

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, both of which you can find below.

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.
June 15, 2009




Film and Statement

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what was said.

“We make no pretence. This is a conference by and for anarchists. And by anarchists, we mean those opposed to the state, all forms of nationalism, capitalism, sexual/race/gender oppression and all forms of exploitation and domination,” Anarchist Movement Conference 09 Call Out

This is our response.

We have taken this space and projected this short film to show how we see sexism in ‘the movement’ and sexism in capitalist society. We have covered our faces in the same way we might do against the state and its agents – inspired by the tradition of our militant sisters who took back male-dominated stages, and political spaces.

We expect hostility, intimidation and greater surveillance after our action. Covering up makes it easier to communicate. And we know that our message is much bigger than the messenger herself. The following text is our response to the four themes of the conference.

MOVEMENT or why we aren’t one

No matter how much we aspire to be ‘self-critical’ there is a clear lack of theorising and concrete action around sexism, homophobia and racism in the anarchist movement. We do not feel that the content and structure of the conference deal with gender and we’re tired of asking for space – we’re taking it ourselves.

You want to talk about history? Let’s stop pretending that feminism is a short blip in the history of political struggles. The feminism you know may be the one that has been dominated by white middle-class liberal politics – NOT the struggles and pockets of revolutionary resistance missing from our political pamphlets and ‘independent’ media. The feminism of Comandanta Yolanda, of bell hooks, of Anzaldua, of Mbuya Nehanda, of Angela Davis, of Rote Zora, of Mujeres Libres…

CLASS or is anybody out there?

We are all oppressed by the class system, but there is nobody ‘out there’ who isn’t also oppressed by white supremacy, imperialism, heterosexism, patriarchy, ableism, ageism…Pretending these systems don’t exist or can be subsumed into capitalist oppression, doesn’t deal with the problem, it just silences those people most oppressed by them, and allows for the continuing domination of these systems over our lives.

We are tired of being told that anarchists don’t need to be feminists, because ‘anarchism has feminism covered’. This is just a convenient way of forgetting the reality of gender oppression, and so ignoring the specifics of the struggle against it.

RESISTANCE or are we futile?

If the anarchist movement doesn’t recognize the power structures it reproduces, its resistance will be futile. For as well as fighting sexism ‘out there’ we must fight sexism ‘in here’ and stop pretending that oppressive systems disappear at the door of the squat or the social centre. Only a movement that understands and fights its own contradictions can provide fertile ground for real and effective resistance.

Ask yourselves this – do you believe sexism exists within the movement? When a woman comrade says she’s experienced sexual abuse or assault from a male comrade – what do you think? That it’s an individual or an isolated case? Or that it can happen – and disproportionately to women – because there is a system which allows it to develop and gives it life? Can we honestly say that our own autonomous spaces do not play a part in upholding this system?

Ask yourselves this – Why do fewer women speak in meetings? Because they think less? What is the gender of the factory worker? Why do more women do the washing up and run creches at meetings/events? What is the gender of the carer at home?

Now tell us if you believe sexism exists: tell us why men rape; why more women are battered than men; why more women are used by the state to do free and unwaged work. Tell us – are you a feminist?

We believe that in the anarchist movement, the strongest evidence of sexism lies in the choice we’re told to make between ‘unity’ and what-they-call ‘separatism’, between fighting the state and fighting sexism. Fuck that! We refuse to be seen as stereotypes of ‘feminists’ you can consume – like fucking merchandise in the capitalist workplace.

IDEAS INTO REALITY and what’s in between?

There will be no future for the anarchist movement if it doesn’t also identify as an anarcha-feminist movement. Anarcha-feminist organisational structures must exist within the movement to make anarcha-feminism an integral part of it. And you don’t need to identify as a woman to be an anarcha-feminist – every anarchist should be able to participate in the struggle against sexism.
The state’s incursion into our private lives and the relationship between sexuality and productivity from which it profits affects people of all genders. The gender binary system violently allocates us roles on the basis of our anatomy. A refusal to accept even these basic precepts will be a great hindrance to the movement.

You ask, ‘Can we find common cause despite our differences?’. We will only find common cause if we recognize that our differences are structured by numerous oppressive systems, and together fight to end each of these systems, wherever we find them.

Our feminisms must be plural, they must be anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic. Our inspiration must come from the actions of feminists who have helped self-identified women reach revolutionary consciousness.
Our feminisms must be revolutionary.

Final word

You can pretend we didn’t come here, pretend nothing was said.
You can purposefully misunderstand us.
Or you can ask yourselves why we came, what we meant, and whether we’ll come back again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lynx]

So, in practice, the anarchist movement is as sexist as society in general? There really is no improvement, even in a small way?

[Dimentio]

I have actually never seen or heard anyway throw sexist slurs against feminist speakers, although I have seen guys sit and draw, look out of the window or sleep during such lectures. I wonder if that are examples of a demeaning attitude?

[NecroCommie]

I have to admit that I am one of those guys Dimentio mentioned. It is plain boring to hear some feminists just talk about how the language is sexist, and then go back to being kind housewives and dream about being the next miss universum. I'd like to see more militant feminist movement. Rise up to the barricades and take out the fucking guns yeah!!!

Women are seen as weaker because majority of them want to look like weaker. They think it is somehow feminine and attractive, but in reality I just cant respect such women. I want to see feminist to raise their fucking heads high. Stop trying to be the next miss-teen, and start demanding equal attitude from men. Thats the kind of feminist I like to hear talking! Luckily some of you feminists have seen the light and cast off your wicked ways.

Actually, couple of weeks ago in a local metal-festival there was this woman who was a friend of mine, and she heard a nearby man twice as tall as she say something like: "women are good only between the fist and the stove". She thus proceeded to hurl a broadside of insults and arguments against this dude, who stood there nearly shitting his pants. I caught myself thinking: "this is the spirit the modern feminist movement needs"

[mel]

I have to admit that I am one of those guys Dimentio mentioned. It is plain boring to hear some feminists just talk about how the language is sexist, and then go back to being kind housewives and dream about being the next miss universum. I'd like to see more militant feminist movement. Rise up to the barricades and take out the fucking guns yeah!!!

Women are seen as weaker because majority of them want to look like weaker. They think it is somehow feminine and attractive, but in reality I just cant respect such women. I want to see feminist to raise their fucking heads high. Stop trying to be the next miss-teen, and start demanding equal attitude from men. Thats the kind of feminist I like to hear talking!

:facepalm:

[Dimentio]

I must admit I am one of the dreamy guys who either look out of the window or draws, but I do that during most lectures (and then I mean all lectures I attend).

Not being able to draw during a lecture is painful, and actually hurts my concentration.

As for Necrocommie's generalisations, I think they say a lot about what social expectations a lot of people expect people to have. They do not say anything about the actual truth. People would want different things in different kinds of societies.

[NecroCommie]

Perhaps. I have to add though that you will never hear me going actually against feminists. If they insist on nerdy tactics, let them... Its just what I like! :crying:

[rosie]

I know it has nothing to do with the video, but I battle with my female, self proclaimed feminist room mate about what is feminism and how sexism and anti-feminist media has effected our own lives as young women. I never claim to be a feminist (i do not feel I am well read enough in the philosophy to be able to defend it in an intellectual debate), but I do claim to be pro-feminist and do what I know how to do to defend the movement and defeat sexism in society. I am astounded at the rate of women who are anti-feminist, and at the amount of women who go about life being totally okay with the status-quo. Thanks you so much for you efforts. Stay strong, Comrades!!! In sisterhood and solidarity,
Rosie

[The Ungovernable Farce]

So, in practice, the anarchist movement is as sexist as society in general? There really is no improvement, even in a small way?
No. Society is massively sexist, and often overtly so; the anarchist movement is a lot less sexist, and very rarely overtly sexist (it still is sometimes, sadly). But the point isn't to be less sexist, it's to not be sexist at all, and by those standards...I wouldn't say we're failing as such, but I would say that we need to be constantly aware of our own behaviour and attitudes, and the ways they can help enforce patriarchal norms.

[Pogue]

Even female comrades in the movement have said that these 'protestors' were speaking aload of shit. Although I do love how the uninformed pounce upon this to preach either about a) The inherent mega-sexism of all males or b) The failures of the anarchist movement. Grats on that TC, how long excactly have you been involved in the Anarchist movement in the UK for now?

If there was sexism in any organisation I was in I'd expect it to be dealt with in a flash. The main issue comrades who have noticed what could be called sexism in the movement have mentioned is how they feel that when an allegation is made of someone doing something that is considered sexist or even more (i.e. allegations of more than just sexist attitudes, but actual sexual assault of any kind), which across the whole UK anarchist scene comes up as an issue probably around once every 4 years (according to experienced activists I have spoken with about this issue), they feel it is not dealt with properly, based on sexist attitudes. For example someone may make accusation of someone having sexuallty assaulted them (this could mean anything from groping to allegations of rape), and it has either been ignored because 'people don't want to talk about it' or they assume that the claim is exaggerated, irrelevant, etc. This is completely unacceptable and if it arose when I was involved I would make my best efforts to ensure it was dealt with because its a serious issue. If it was brushed aside this would be completelt unacceptable.

However, one thing to remember is that what may be considered 'anarchist' is really broad. Theres been cases of issues such as this arising with people who live together say in a squat or social centre and it hasn't been dealt with properly leading to accusations of sexism on the part of everyone who doesn't take the issue seriously, but I have never experienced this because quite simply its not a regular occurence.

There has never been an issue of sexism in any of the groups I am involved in, and I refuse to feel obliged defend any other organisations other than those I participate in because quite simply I am only responsible for the organisations I am a part of. If anything occured, which I highly doubt because everyone I've met has been a throgoughly top person, then I'd expect it to be dealt with in a manner suited to the seriousness of such an issue. I doubt this will ever become a major issue though.

Sexism is totally unnacceptable but exagerated dramatic accusations help no one and are quite frankly annoying and insulting at times. I also think its insane to talk of 'movement wide' sexism especially seeing as there are many different people who call themselves anarchist, we're not homogenous and we may hold different attitudes. As I said I don't feel obliged to defend anyone other than myself primarily and then also the organisations I am part of.

[NecroCommie]

I am astounded at the rate of women who are anti-feminist, and at the amount of women who go about life being totally okay with the status-quo. Thanks you so much for you efforts.

Ok, I have to agree on this matter. I mean what the heck!
- "There is this bunch of people who want you to have an equal standing with men."

- "naah... I think we deserve to be raped in the ass 24/7..."

If there is something more moronic than a sexist man, it must be an anti-woman woman.

[mel]

But the point isn't to be less sexist, it's to not be sexist at all, and by those standards....

Unfortuantely, no movement exists in a social vacuum and it is not possible for anybody to live in a society which is sexist and not fall into some of the traps of sexism themselves. Women's liberation is not possible without class liberation because capitalism will continue to reinforce sexism, classism, racism, and all other forms of oppression for so long as doing so remains profitable for the overwhelmingly white, privileged males in power.

Liberal feminism seeks to put more women into positions of privilege, and make exploitation an equal-opportunity game. Anarchist or Communist feminism should seek to eliminate privilege in all of its forms, and it is simply impossible to remove racism, sexism, etc. without overthrowing the society which breeds it. It may be possible to be less sexist, and to combat sexist attitudes as a community, but ultimately the sexism in society will find ways to express itself in any community whose members are a part of that society. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that can only be helped by overthrowing the class rule that continues to perpetuate exploitation.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Unfortuantely, no movement exists in a social vacuum and it is not possible for anybody to live in a society which is sexist and not fall into some of the traps of sexism themselves. Women's liberation is not possible without class liberation because capitalism will continue to reinforce sexism, classism, racism, and all other forms of oppression for so long as doing so remains profitable for the overwhelmingly white, privileged males in power.

Liberal feminism seeks to put more women into positions of privilege, and make exploitation an equal-opportunity game. Anarchist or Communist feminism should seek to eliminate privilege in all of its forms, and it is simply impossible to remove racism, sexism, etc. without overthrowing the society which breeds it. It may be possible to be less sexist, and to combat sexist attitudes as a community, but ultimately the sexism in society will find ways to express itself in any community whose members are a part of that society. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that can only be helped by overthrowing the class rule that continues to perpetuate exploitation.
I completely agree with all this. But, to me, the fact that "it is not possible for anybody to live in a society which is sexist and not fall into some of the traps of sexism themselves" means that we have to be constantly looking out for those traps and trying to minimise the extent to which we fall into them. Which is why Haywood's attitude to this issue seems so unhelpful, because he seems to think that it is possible to be a product of a patriarchal misogynist society and not hold any conscious or unconscious sexist attitudes.

[TC]

Women are seen as weaker because majority of them want to look like weaker.

Yes I'm sure that must explain it. :glare:

The fact that people who hold themselves out as Marxists first look to explain sexist ideology and sexism in terms of women's psychology, when they first look to socio-economic power dynamics to explain everything else, is revealing of their desire, realized or unrealized, to participate in those power dynamics.

[TC]

No. Society is massively sexist, and often overtly so; the anarchist movement is a lot less sexist, and very rarely overtly sexist (it still is sometimes, sadly). But the point isn't to be less sexist, it's to not be sexist at all, and by those standards...I wouldn't say we're failing as such, but I would say that we need to be constantly aware of our own behaviour and attitudes, and the ways they can help enforce patriarchal norms.


"Society" cannot be characterized in anyway without defining the parameters of what you're talking about in particular.

Personally I think the Anarchist movement is generally as or more sexist than many social circles, both political and non-political. Its more sexist than a bourgeois sociology department, less sexist than a southern baptist church, on average, I'd say, for instance.


By leftwing activist standards, the anarchist movement can come off as very sexist due to the combination of machismo and structureless/quasi-structureless organization because the less formal structure the more personality, presentation and friendship networks form the exclusive basis for group decisions. The visibility of female leadership among marxist-leninists and trotskyists is often because simply having a formal structure means that interpersonal power relations are made overt instead of existing covertly, making them harder to evaluate critically.

[Dimentio]

Yes I'm sure that must explain it. :glare:

The fact that people who hold themselves out as Marxists first look to explain sexist ideology and sexism in terms of women's psychology, when they first look to socio-economic power dynamics to explain everything else, is revealing of their desire, realized or unrealized, to participate in those power dynamics.

Or just of generally diminished brain capacities. ^^

[gorillafuck]

Women are seen as weaker because majority of them want to look like weaker.
Oh my god, did you really just say that?

[mel]

Oh my god, did you really just say that?

Hence my :facepalm:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I have to admit that I am one of those guys Dimentio mentioned. It is plain boring to hear some feminists just talk about how the language is sexist, and then go back to being kind housewives and dream about being the next miss universum. I'd like to see more militant feminist movement. Rise up to the barricades and take out the fucking guns yeah!!!

Women are seen as weaker because majority of them want to look like weaker. They think it is somehow feminine and attractive, but in reality I just cant respect such women. I want to see feminist to raise their fucking heads high. Stop trying to be the next miss-teen, and start demanding equal attitude from men. Thats the kind of feminist I like to hear talking! Luckily some of you feminists have seen the light and cast off your wicked ways.

Actually, couple of weeks ago in a local metal-festival there was this woman who was a friend of mine, and she heard a nearby man twice as tall as she say something like: "women are good only between the fist and the stove". She thus proceeded to hurl a broadside of insults and arguments against this dude, who stood there nearly shitting his pants. I caught myself thinking: "this is the spirit the modern feminist movement needs"

Shut the fuck up you patronizing wanker.

[TC]

Even female comrades in the movement have said that these 'protestors' were speaking aload of shit.

How is that relevant? Do you imagine that if a woman says something isn't sexist, then it proves that it isn't, or that women are unable to perpetuate sexism?

In the women's liberation movement, before they could take political action to achieve specific policy or social structural change goals they had to pariticpate in 'conciousness raising'.The ideological assumptions of people with the most power and influence, whether in a whole country, a factory, a religion or a movement, effect the thinking of everyone under their influence, regardless of where they are in the power structure. The denial that these structures exist is one of the most common ideological commitments of people with disproportional power because they often stand to lose when the unchosen power relations are exposed.



If there was sexism in any organisation I was in I'd expect it to be dealt with in a flash. The main issue comrades who have noticed what could be called sexism in the movement have mentioned is how they feel that when an allegation is made of someone doing something that is considered sexist or even more (i.e. allegations of more than just sexist attitudes, but actual sexual assault of any kind), which across the whole UK anarchist scene comes up as an issue probably around once every 4 years (according to experienced activists I have spoken with about this issue), they feel it is not dealt with properly, based on sexist attitudes. For example someone may make accusation of someone having sexuallty assaulted them (this could mean anything from groping to allegations of rape), and it has either been ignored because 'people don't want to talk about it' or they assume that the claim is exaggerated, irrelevant, etc. This is completely unacceptable and if it arose when I was involved I would make my best efforts to ensure it was dealt with because its a serious issue. If it was brushed aside this would be completelt unacceptable.

If the paradigmn case for sexism for you is multiple people ignoring a sexual assault allegation is ignoring a sexual assault allegation, then its no wonder that you don't think the anarchist movement is sexist because it suggests that you probably don't define sexist power dynamics and implicit sexism in remotely the same way that feminists do. If you haven't conceptually recognized and problematized the type of systemic male dominance that is being discussed as a type of sexism or a sexist phenomenon, then of course you aren't going see sexism in the anarchist movement. You wont be looking for the right thing and you wont be attuned to it.


I also think its insane to talk of 'movement wide' sexism especially seeing as there are many different people who call themselves anarchist, we're not homogenous and we may hold different attitudes. As I said I don't feel obliged to defend anyone other than myself primarily and then also the organisations I am part of.

You did just that actually, and you also helped to show that protesters were absolutely right to take your stage: you do ignore them, trivialize them, and dismiss thier complaints without even making an effort to understand, and now that they've demanded space, you ridicule them.

[Dimentio]

How is it with sexism in a marxist-leninist environment?

[Pogue]

How is that relevant? Do you imagine that if a woman says something isn't sexist, then it proves that it isn't, or that women are unable to perpetuate sexism?

In the women's liberation movement, before they could take political action to achieve specific policy or social structural change goals they had to pariticpate in 'conciousness raising'.The ideological assumptions of people with the most power and influence, whether in a whole country, a factory, a religion or a movement, effect the thinking of everyone under their influence, regardless of where they are in the power structure. The denial that these structures exist is one of the most common ideological commitments of people with disproportional power because they often stand to lose when the unchosen power relations are exposed.


Its relevant because I think it hilights these claims of some fundamental sexism which provided as their main piece of evidence *shock* *horror* a woman washing up were the view of 6 deluded wierdos and didn't represent anything outside of this. I could black block into Marxism 2009 and hold a 'guerilla presentation' proving that all the trots were in fact racist bastards, but that wouldn't make me worth listening too.


If the paradigmn case for sexism for you is multiple people ignoring a sexual assault allegation is ignoring a sexual assault allegation, then its no wonder that you don't think the anarchist movement is sexist because it suggests that you probably don't define sexist power dynamics and implicit sexism in remotely the same way that feminists do. If you haven't conceptually recognized and problematized the type of systemic male dominance that is being discussed as a type of sexism or a sexist phenomenon, then of course you aren't going see sexism in the anarchist movement. You wont be looking for the right thing and you wont be attuned to it.

No, I am saying that the main issue comrades hae hilighted as being serious evidence of sexism in the movement was when someone reported sexual assault and it wasn't dealt with properly. Seeing as the 'movement' as a whole apparently didn't deal with it properly, this is the only case of 'movement' wide sexism as any individual acts are isolated examples and represent sexism on the behalf of the perpetraitor not of everyone who happens to have the same ideology as them.


You did just that actually, and you also helped to show that protesters were absolutely right to take your stage: you do ignore them, trivialize them, and dismiss thier complaints without even making an effort to understand, and now that they've demanded space, you ridicule them.

As I said, I don't feel obliged to do it. I don't have to do it to still stay true to my politics, the same way I'd be obliged to defend L&S if we were accused of being a sexist organisation. I merely want to defend the 'movement' in the face of ridiculous accusations.

I don't see why its so shocking that I trivialise and ignore people who march, black bloc, army style, into a meeting, and give us a second rate presentation accusing us all of being chauvinists. They had no right to disrupt the conference, it was done immaturely and provocatively. If they had some cases of sexism to report they should have done it the same way everyone else did it, by bringing it to the table in the discussion or requesting to be hard, rather than rudely interupting an pre-planned, pre-arranged conference just to throw stupid accusations around, which were, as I said, mainly bacekd up with the odd image of a female who we are meant to suppose is an anarchist washing up. I feel quite able to ridicule these people for their stupid behaviour, they acted like spoilt children who desperately wanted attention and it was pathetic.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

"Society" cannot be characterized in anyway without defining the parameters of what you're talking about in particular.

Personally I think the Anarchist movement is generally as or more sexist than many social circles, both political and non-political. Its more sexist than a bourgeois sociology department, less sexist than a southern baptist church, on average, I'd say, for instance.

I'm not convinced by this. I think Baptist churches probably tend to be more numerous and better-populated than sociology departments, so I'd take the former as being closer to "the norm". But point taken, either way there's still a lot of work that needs doing.

Its relevant because I think it hilights these claims of some fundamental sexism which provided as their main piece of evidence *shock* *horror* a woman washing up were the view of 6 deluded wierdos and didn't represent anything outside of this.
Except for all the people who've said they agree with the video and recognise the issue it raises. Why did so many people clap?


Seeing as the 'movement' as a whole apparently didn't deal with it properly, this is the only case of 'movement' wide sexism as any individual acts are isolated examples and represent sexism on the behalf of the perpetraitor not of everyone who happens to have the same ideology as them.
Right. No matter how many "isolated acts" there are, there's no way they could possibly form a pattern, is there?



I don't see why its so shocking that I trivialise and ignore people who march, black bloc, army style, into a meeting, and give us a second rate presentation accusing us all of being chauvinists. They had no right to disrupt the conference, it was done immaturely and provocatively. If they had some cases of sexism to report they should have done it the same way everyone else did it, by bringing it to the table in the discussion or requesting to be hard, rather than rudely interupting an pre-planned, pre-arranged conference just to throw stupid accusations around, which were, as I said, mainly bacekd up with the odd image of a female who we are meant to suppose is an anarchist washing up. I feel quite able to ridicule these people for their stupid behaviour, they acted like spoilt children who desperately wanted attention and it was pathetic.
In what way does that critique differ from every liberal dismissal of anarchist direct action ever? If you feel shut out of a power structure, liberals ask politely if those in power would please be kind enough to let them in, anarchists storm it. It's no different from any other direct action, except that we happened to be on the receiving end.

[A_Ciarra]

"Please forgive any disturbance I might have caused in this thread. I remain unable to express what I was trying to say and have decided to give up before making myself look like any more of an ass.

Please know that I was never attempting to suggest that oppression was "only in their heads" or that feelings of social inequality were invalid or unsubstantiated. I was just looking to find the reasons why these inequalities existed and what can be done about it, but I expressed myself poorly on an issue with a lot of subtleties and it is easy to cause confusion if you aren't extremely careful. I never meant to be or sound dismissive in any way, shape, or form."

I find it very unfortunate and even ironic when one of the most articulate and socially conscience speakers feels the need to silence himself because he is made to feel like it is to difficult to walk over the egg shells without getting pegged as a male chauvinist.

Games DO get played, and it's showing up yet again on this thread. Perhaps we should not loose sight of what tyranny can consist of while trying to understand sexism.

I wouldn't call causing people to sit on pins and needles and waiting and watching for any slight appearance, or sign of something even remotely indicitive of sexism feminism, but rather tyranny.

"Buyer be ware," if you know you deeply care about sexism, and go out of your way to stand up against it, assist women etc., yet you just can't win because it's really something else being expected of you ---- then it's probably not feminism that your dealing with, but a whole different thing all together (which should be payed attention too).

I don't know what is worse: the oppression and inequality towards women --- or the subjugation of men (or anyone) via ultra hyper scrutiny and pins and needles, and forced "I must win, you must loose because I'm a women" set up's. Have we lost sight of the game on the other side of the spectrum?

Some women need to start doing a little listening of their own, and learn how to co-operate as equals rather than intimidate, conquer and silence via this form of fascism. "Women should take the reins, yes" when someone is overtly sexist, act up, that's perhaps the best way to fight sexism... Anything else is often speculation and ripe with tedious menutia. To sit with your fingers on the trigger, and scrutinize every last perceived slight, and then descend into subjugation is blatantly cruel in it's own right. And people know damn well the goal with that is to silence people from speaking. Is this justice and equality? Hardly! Though it's makes a good show that can be confused as feminism.

The fragment of the women practicing this tyranny are NOT feminist's (at least not just feminists), nor are they doing a single thing for women. You can't correct one injustice with another... It doesn't work that way.

[ls]

I thought it was inuslting to us all that they felt a need to enter in such a stupid fashion and treat us all like idiots.

Why do you feel that way? If they feel like they've experienced sexism in a broad number of anarchist organisations they've been involved in, I would support their right to speak up.

How else will they be given a platform at something like the anarchist conference? Politely ask "can we disrupt the conference because we have an important point".


I've never experienced sexism in any of the organisations I'm in. I've heard tales of some odd things happening which have shocked me, and believe me this issue has been discussed by members of anarchist organisations in this country following this event.

Then it's fair to say you have indirectly.



In fairness I think most marxist-leninist and trotskyist organizations have an equal amount of informal social hierarchy but its less along gender lines then in anarchist groups.
..
Personally I think the Anarchist movement is generally as or more sexist than many social circles, both political and non-political. Its more sexist than a bourgeois sociology department, less sexist than a southern baptist church, on average, I'd say, for instance.


That's unfounded bullshit, you base this on the fact that 'society at large is sexist' and that because anarchism is based on 'informal social circles' - and you'd probably go as far as to say tight cliques with emphasis on hierarchy (in LCAP for example which is largely anarchist, there has been active work to eliminate cliques and the feeling of new members that it is a 'social circle' from which they are firstly excluded until they 'prove themselves as one of the pack', facilitators at meetings are constantly rotated each meeting and I'd say that gender representation is actually perfectly equal).


By leftwing activist standards, the anarchist movement can come off as very sexist due to the combination of machismo and structureless/quasi-structureless organization because the less formal structure the more personality, presentation and friendship networks form the exclusive basis for group decisions.

So having an informal and "quasi-structureless" organisation magically paves way for sexist males to dominate? That's just a load of crap, sorry. I think that that is really baseless, I've witnessed first-hand active attempts to disestablish the thinking of it as a "clique".


The visibility of female leadership among marxist-leninists and trotskyists is often because simply having a formal structure means that interpersonal power relations are made overt instead of existing covertly, making them harder to evaluate critically.

?

In both of my groups there are plenty of female facilitators, not leaders, who are constantly rotated around equally with male ones, they aren't given "less time to speak" or anything like that, I have experienced sexism on one occasion and the people responsible were asked to leave.


Or just of generally diminished brain capacities. ^^

Better than no brain capacity whatsoever.


The fragment of the women practicing this tyranny are NOT feminist's (at least not just feminists), nor are they doing a single thing for women. You can't correct one injustice with another... It doesn't work that way.

While that's essentially true for the most part, you cannot just say that women who feel they are pigeonholed into feeling that they should be a certain way should be just held back from speaking out their opinion, at the anarchist conference I feel that these women are entirely right to speak up, it's also telling that quite a few idiots did say chauvinist things.*

*It should be noted that marxist-leninists and trotskyist circles in my experience are just as bad as "quasi-structureless anarchists"

[A_Ciarra]

"You cannot just say that women who feel they are pigeonholed into feeling that they should be a certain way should be just held back from speaking out their opinion, at the anarchist conference.

I did not assert this, nor is it my view. Make sure you know what I am objecting to and skip the assumptions that can be guessed at, and spun endlessly.

I find this argument a simplistic defense of destructive authoritarian "feminism," and the behaviors of those that share an infinity with it.

I WILL question the these womens assertions and decide if they are baseless and/or coming from ulterior motives. After close examination of how the male chauvinist can be created out of thin air, when he was or is never there, I DO reject the assertions of these women as to broad scale sexism. There IS the critical problem of irrational thinking and assessment of male behaviors from many feminists to be heavily taken into account here. The creation of the male chauvinist was seen in this thread alone - directed at a most definitely NON chauvinist male that was sincerely hoping to understand sexism so that he would not perpetrate it. The chauvinist was made – created – when it was fictitious right from the start (if we are to be rational and sincerely honest).



And based on who the women directing the reverse practices in superiority and authority (chauvinism & fascism), felt an affinity with the women that put the video together, it’s more than safe to understand that the anarchist’s being targeted are being subjected to the same creation of the male chauvinist (and expected to submit.) In THAT you have the tyranny (referred to above) - and also the motivating factor of the women behind the video (this is something they would be permitted to carry out on abroad scale if they are not questioned, and subsequently rejected for precisely what they are practicing). Are they being rejected for fascism by anarchist's who loath it, or are they being "oppressed?" That question deserves to be asked. And that line of questioning was trying to be shut down here.Why? Are people so invested in their views that they have forgot to question?

The very mark of the irrational (and cruel) “feminist” is to take the every last subtle imperfection of men - things anarchist men (and other caring men) would own - and in a flash take responsibility for, if they were completed people, but they are being asked to perform at nothing less than perfection lest they have a dose of fascism fired at them. Good men are constantly being asked to walk on pins and needles, yet their imperfections are sold as subtle sexism at every turn. Is this to assert the women's own agenda of authority and reversed sexism?

And in defense anarchist men, let’s not forget what draws the sincere ones to become anarchist’s in the first place – it’s not just objections to state – it’s because they hold a deep loathing to injustices of all people. Based on the irrational shit here, that it's not questioned, looking at shared affinities, realizing that that would also come from more than a few women there - it's easy to access what going down. This IS a little game of creating the male chauvinist, then collectively punish the whole, for the sins of a few.., “SHIT – that’s low!”

And would women want to have themselves held to the absolute highest standards of perfection, be forced to perform under the microscope lest THEY have a dose of cruelty directed at them? Hardly! More than a touch of inequality there.

And I don’t give a damn about examining sexism under the microscope, people are not stupid, they can spot the games and sort it out from the concrete and understand who is do what to whom.. People have a right and need for some elbow room to self police themselves without the many authoritarian actions being directed at them. Short sighted [leftist] feminists MUST start taking some comfort from the fact the they ARE cared about without expecting perfection – and work on some healing before the become potentially and seriously destructive to others, anti-capitalism - their own stated values...

I will, AND DO, reject the propaganda coming from the group of women behind this video - I find them to be seeking power (not to be confused with genuine equality) and find them to be destructive to what are truly my comrades. By the way, being a comrade doesn't mean dismissing sexism without questioning them too.


It's also telling that quite a few idiots did say chauvinist things.* I think the premise in incorrect to start with here. Though it lends weight to the argument that broad scale sexism is going on, it nit picks to assert a much broader thing. Because a tinge of sexism can be picked out from, and defined as such from a few men (or women) here, it’s simply not enough for a thorough understanding of what’s going down. The fuller questions and dynamics of who, what, why, when, and where.., need to be applied as well. I loath the way this group of women simply assert, and seem to want us to believe without questioning the fuller dynamics – use shoddy documentation, appeal to emotion, then depend on tactics of violence to demand their perceived “right’s.” They need to check and see what they are really asking of people – if it’s submission to their own fascism, or equality and fairness.

Anyone putting out a video like this really needs to check themselves before being reckless and destructive.

Getting irrational and expecting men to exhibit perfection at all times, is far far different from sexism on a broad scale. With the common practice of “creating the male chauvinist” that is not truly there to begin with, we have way to much irrational thinking that factors into their assertions. Their video is backed up with zero more than accusation, and it’s clearly going to provoke that good old rash mob mentality as well.