Log in

View Full Version : A look back at AFem2014



Quail
24th October 2014, 13:00
Sunday the 19th of October seen the first International Anarcha-Feminist Conference, aka AFem2014. The seed from which it would eventually grow fell from the tree back in August of 2012. That tree was the St Imier International Congress anarcha-feminist round table. This was series of meetings that took place on each of the five days of that event. In the closing session it’s participants announced their plans to host an anarcha-feminist congress of their own within several years. This was met by thunderous applause from the congress floor. Busily contacts were exchanged, interested parties came forward, and a group agreed to take lead on the project.

Then nothing.

Months passed.

The Anarchist Federation started to get occasional contacts asking if we knew of any organising on the Anarcha-Feminist Congress. Our international secretaries put out inquiries thought our sibling federations in IFA as well as any other contacts in the global anarchist movement. After some investigation it appeared that no planning had happened, and those who had stepped forward at St. Imier were out of contact. Sometimes things just can’t get done, such is the nature of being in a struggle, and definitely not something to be ashamed of.

That may have been the end of it if it wasn’t for one federation member deciding that this idea was necessary to both counter the failings of feminism outside the anarchist movement, with all other branches of thought happy to throw more and more people under the bus in the name of capitalism; and also within, as we see elements of the anarchist movement where misogyny and sexism are rife and where little more than lip service is given to overcoming the power structures surrounding gender, especially in regard to groups marginalized even by other feminists.

Discussions were had and soon proposals drafted for the fed to kickstart the previously proposed international event. The discussions were thorough and some of the goals laid out at this early stage. This wasn’t to be a project hosted only by the AF (as had previous anarcha-feminist events we had been involved in organising), or just undertaken by our international the IFA, but was to be born from the AF and gain its own autonomy. It had to provide a strong class-struggle perspective to provide a counter to the dominant feminist movement’s lack of liberatory potential. It also had to not only be inclusive to groups normally marginalized within the anarcha-feminist movement but also counter the prejudices they face. After some debate the federation reached a consensus of agreement to go forward and feelers were put out to other organisations.

Early on sibling federations throughout the IFA were keen to help, while here in Britain the SolFed joined and they made contact with their international federation the IWA. A meeting at 2013 London Anarchist Bookfair gathered support from independent anarcha-feminists, as did the creation of a web presence. After several months a consensus emerged on the criteria for organisation where those involved had to:

Be an anarchist and a feminist
Agree with aims of the conference given in the invitation statement
Abide by any agreed safer spaces and community accountability processes
Be able to attend the conference under any agreed attendance policies
Agree to work towards implementing the collectively agreed decisions of the group
As planning went on things looked touch-and-go at times whether an event would be possible at all. New people got involved and others took breaks. Fundraising took place but money was short. Speakers and workshops started to came forward but then the programme had to be made to work. The inclusion policy was agreed along the lines of the form of oppression suffered which caused ripples in a field normally only looking purely to identity to give an indication of attendance. The safer spaces agreement was put in place and people needed to help on the day. Eventually everything started to come together.

Key to the whole event was the way in which different strands of the conference timetable would be given to groups usually marginalized within feminism (such as the disabled, sex workers, trans women, etc). This gave longer discussions over the course of the day about certain subjects, and it was hoped that this would highlight struggles from those who found their voices normally sidelined, vilified or lost entirely in feminist organising.

The day came and everything went past in a blur. Personally I spent the day either volunteering, supporting others, or helping to present the community accountability strand so I’m going to leave the nitty gritty of reviewing the strands to those who were there purely as attendees This was the first time something like this had been attempted and it was all a bit experimental – but if we are ever to succeed in our goal of social revolution we have to be brave and try stuff. I think AFem did that and made a success of it all, though not everything was perfect.

I’ve also not kept up with the internet feedback but I know there has been moaning online. I find forums are a draining, negative space, and hearing that folks were griping (often folks who were not even in attendance), I haven’t gone to look for it yet – that can wait until I’m more rested. On the other hand I spent the days following AFem hopping between different people who had been in attendance. The feedback I’ve been getting in person has been overwhelmingly positive. One person said it was best anarcha feminist event they had attended (and they were not green in this kind of thing). All of them gave feedback of negative points, but it was fell into fairly similar areas, constructively phrased, and the positives were overwhelming to them. A quick rundown these:

+ Big open/close
Folks loved the opening and closing sessions which gathered everybody in attendance together and were kept on track by the organisers. The way people set goals for the day meant there was a collective feeling of active participation expected from folks attending.
+ Developing ideas
Everyone I talked to had learned new ideas and methods to take back home, and many otherwise liberal feminists were not only exposed to anarcha-feminism for the first time, but engaged and took away lessons from an anarchist perspective.
+ Strands
The way in which strands were organised was loved by all. It led for more discussion and time to work on things. People said this was SO MUCH BETTER than how bookfairs and other conferences run their meetings and it rarely felt like you were just being talked to but were part of a discussion.
+ Atmosphere
On the whole people found the atmosphere at the event to be positive and liberating, with people able to build solidarity against shared opression. ot only that but international links were forged and space for meeting other anarcha-feminists took place. They also commented on how easy it was to find organisers and volounteers, and upon how friendly and approachable they all were.
+ Safer Spaces Policy
Every person commented that it was refreshing to see is attempting a safer space policy that goes far beyond what most conferences would do, and think we have struck some new ground in how this could be put in place at similar events, though some areas do need development.
+ Self Care
Food Not Bombs provided lunch for anyone who was skint and was loved by all. At the same time a decent quiet space and the readily available interpretation and safer space volunteers made everything a lot more manageable.
+ Internationalism
The international aspect was seen as being vital to the experience, with at least 19 different countries represented in attendance, and something others would hope to see us expand.
+ Enthusiasm to continue
Overwhelmingly people wanted to see this happen again, if not next year then in 2016.

The constructive criticisms raised to me were:

- Time table clashes
These can almost never be avoided, and people acknowledged this, but at the same time everyone said there was some clash at some time for them. We tried the best we could but always worth keeping this in mind.
- TERF infestation
A group of trans exclusionary radical feminists (known as TERFs for short) undertook a long-term plan to undermine the event. They had one of their number, Gail Chester of the London Feminist Library, join the organising group early on and lie outright about their politics to other organisers. She then positioned herself to help present the Introduction to Anarcha-Feminism where she went off the presentation planned with the co-facilitator in order to spout her transphobic bile. At the same time she worked with others to have one TERF go into each session and parrot the same transphobic talking points. They used the quiet space to regroup and plan. Attempts were made to remove them by some of the organisers but Gail protected them and broke down the consensus we had otherwise forged for the event. Despite this betrayal and sabotage, everyone I talked with found that any move towards transphobic discussion was quickly shut down and made unwelcome, and that the issue was handled better than most events. However, there was still a lack of consistency on how those breaking with the safer spaces agreement were dealt with.
- Cultural appropriation/racism
Lots of white people turned up using fashion displays from cultures that had been othered by white imperialism with no respect for the cultures they were came from and then got defensive when this was fed back in a negative light by the POC strand. Again, while the safer space policy had words on this subject we didn’t have a consistent process on what we were actually doing about it.
- Lack of resources
We didn’t have enough full programmes for the attendees (though everyone did get a timetable), and while we had people on hand to read out the timetable we did not have large print versions. This was a major slip up and something that I will not be repeated.

On Gail and the gang, it is unfortunate that but not surprising that they would go to such lengths to try and ruin the event. However if after a year of planning the best they could manage was to get one person to lie about their political intentions and follow that up with five or six die-hards attending in the center of London then they have played what may be their hardest hitting attempt to disrupt at a time where the conference was vulnerable and gone home with plumbs. The problems that have been highlighted have came with constructive suggestions for improvement and the organising group are already moving forward with these, thought we are going to need to take a wee break before launching into any serious planning.

AFEM banner

AFem has now been fully realized as its own organisational entity, separate to the groups that nurtured it early on. As a member of the AF this is a key example of the worth of the federation, and illustrates the way in which anarchist organisations differ from their authoritarian counterparts. Where others would use this as a front group and co-opt the struggles of others for self gain, anarchists work to create mutual aid and forge solidarity between truly autonomous groups, with struggles directed by those who are oppressed. I have every confidence that this has been the start of an ongoing series of truly international events to build a modern anarcha-feminist practice and will start to ensure that anarcha-feminism is central to anything that could be regarded today as anarchist practice. As such, the last thing to say is a big thanks to everyone who contributed to making AFem 2014 a resounding success. Thank you all!

Source. (https://glasgowanarchists.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/a-look-back-at-afem2014/)

The Feral Underclass
24th October 2014, 13:02
The TERF shit is astounding. The level of Machiavellian maneuvering is intense.

Danielle Ni Dhighe
24th October 2014, 13:26
Why weren't the TERFs simply ejected?

Rosa Partizan
24th October 2014, 13:28
I'd like to know what exactly was said. I've seen TERF becoming more and more used as a buzzword to shut down radfem discussions, sometimes even by straight cis guys. So not buying that immediately.

The Feral Underclass
24th October 2014, 13:29
Erm, did either of you actually read the article?

Rosa Partizan
24th October 2014, 13:32
Erm, did either of you actually read the article?

"Transphobic" is nothing too precise. Sometimes statements like "cis women and trans women don't share the same way of socialization" is called transphobic.

The Feral Underclass
24th October 2014, 13:33
"Transphobic" is nothing too precise. Sometimes statements like "cis women and trans women don't share the same way of socialization" is called transphobic.

Is that a yes or a no?

Quail
24th October 2014, 13:35
I think perhaps our safer spaces policy was missing a clear procedure for dealing with incidents, although for the most part things did run quite smoothly. I spent most of the day volunteering on the welcome desk, and I wasn't actually aware of the full extent of the TERF issues until it was discussed on the email list. My understanding of how the TERFs were dealt with is that they were initially treated as ignorant rather than malicious, and one of the safer spaces volunteers sat down with them and tried to understand where they were coming from and explain the reasons for our inclusion policy. I think they left following that discussion.

Quail
24th October 2014, 13:36
I'd like to know what exactly was said. I've seen TERF becoming more and more used as a buzzword to shut down radfem discussions, sometimes even by straight cis guys. So not buying that immediately.

They asked for (and were denied) a "women-born-women"-only meeting.

Danielle Ni Dhighe
24th October 2014, 13:37
Erm, did either of you actually read the article?
I did read it, and I still don't understand why thy TERFs weren't simply ejected.

The Feral Underclass
24th October 2014, 13:38
I did read it, and I still don't understand why thy TERFs weren't simply ejected.

"Attempts were made to remove them by some of the organisers but Gail protected them and broke down the consensus we had otherwise forged for the event."

Danielle Ni Dhighe
24th October 2014, 13:40
My understanding of how the TERFs were dealt with is that they were initially treated as ignorant rather than malicious, and one of the safer spaces volunteers sat down with them and tried to understand where they were coming from and explain the reasons for our inclusion policy. I think they left following that discussion.
Thanks for the reply. Do you think that if there is an AFem2015, they might have better policies in place to deal with something like that?

Danielle Ni Dhighe
24th October 2014, 13:41
"Attempts were made to remove them by some of the organisers but Gail protected them and broke down the consensus we had otherwise forged for the event."
Yes, I read that, but it doesn't really answer the question. This Gail individual should have been ejected, too.

Danielle Ni Dhighe
24th October 2014, 13:43
"Transphobic" is nothing too precise. Sometimes statements like "cis women and trans women don't share the same way of socialization" is called transphobic.
I've never seen a simple statement of "cis women and trans women were socialized differently" called transphobic.

Rosa Partizan
24th October 2014, 13:44
They asked for (and were denied) a "women-born-women"-only meeting.

Yes, that is transphobic.

TFU, you might show me the passage in the text where you found this information.

The Feral Underclass
24th October 2014, 13:46
Yes, I read that, but it doesn't really answer the question. This Gail individual should have been ejected, too.

So you're saying the direct democratic process of consensus that had been built to make decisions should have been overruled by a minority of people acting outside of that organising process to enforce their political beliefs?

I mean, I don't particularly like consensus decision making, but if a group has made a decision to follow a process of decision making, it's not appropriate for people to take matters into their own hands just because they don't agree with something, even if it's justified. You can't agree to a process of decision making and then just ignore it when it suits you.

Why would you advocate that?

Danielle Ni Dhighe
24th October 2014, 13:49
So you're saying the direct democratic process of consensus that had been built to make decisions should have been overruled by a minority of people acting outside of that organising process to enforce their political beliefs?
No, I'm saying the majority should have ejected a small contingent who were clearly there to stir up trouble.

Quail
24th October 2014, 13:50
Thanks for the reply. Do you think that if there is an AFem2015, they might have better policies in place to deal with something like that?
I think so - since this was the first conference, the safer spaces policy was kind of untested. It's already been brought up with the organisers that we didn't have enough of a concrete procedure in place.


Yes, I read that, but it doesn't really answer the question. This Gail individual should have been ejected, too.
I think the issues with Gail were a bit of a disaster. I must admit I was surprised to see that she was leading one of the sessions because we had a heated discussion about inclusion a while ago, but (as I suppose most people did) I assumed she had reconsidered her earlier opinions and was acting in good faith.

The Feral Underclass
24th October 2014, 13:51
TFU, you might show me the passage in the text where you found this information.

Did you imagine there were non-transphobic views that they might have had that would not have required them to go to the lengths they went to to usurp and undermine an event that specifically prohibited their beliefs?

I guess my point is, I don't really understand your intervention...I don't really understand, based on the information provided, why you would feel it necessary to say, "I'd like to know what exactly was said. I've seen TERF becoming more and more used as a buzzword to shut down radfem discussions, sometimes even by straight cis guys. So not buying that immediately."

It seems needlessly provocative all things considered.

The Feral Underclass
24th October 2014, 13:52
No, I'm saying the majority should have ejected a small contingent who were clearly there to stir up trouble.

Okay, I agree, but that is different to asking why they weren't...:confused:

Quail
24th October 2014, 14:06
No, I'm saying the majority should have ejected a small contingent who were clearly there to stir up trouble.

I agree they should have been ejected, but obviously we have some improvements to make for next time.

From what I've heard, any trans-exclusionary stuff was challenged and made unwelcome in the meetings. I have only seen positive feedback about the conference's inclusiveness so far, so I'm hoping that's a sign that any damage the TERFs hoped to do was limited by the willingness of everyone else to call them out on their bullshit.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
26th October 2014, 22:56
So you're saying the direct democratic process of consensus that had been built to make decisions should have been overruled by a minority of people acting outside of that organising process to enforce their political beliefs?

I mean, I don't particularly like consensus decision making, but if a group has made a decision to follow a process of decision making, it's not appropriate for people to take matters into their own hands just because they don't agree with something, even if it's justified. You can't agree to a process of decision making and then just ignore it when it suits you.

Why would you advocate that?

I wold argue that consensus is forged on a basis of unity around a particular project, and that violating that basis of unity (in this case, being a TERF) constitutes a breach of consensus in-and-of-itself. In such cases, I don't think a person's consent continues to matter to a project.

That said, I would be interested to know more about the lessons the organizers are drawing form this setback.

I'd also love to know about this "strand" model. The term is not familiar to me in this context.