Toronto G20 Footage Question...

[¿Que?]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. This is a serious question tho. It speaks to the nature of Anarchist movements and the so called "black block" whatever that is.

Anyway, my question is in reference to this video:

+ YouTube Video

Specifically, I am referring to the section of this video between :55 and 1:07.

My question: Are those people smashing windows women? And if so, be my guess to comment on the significance of this, if any.

Peace!

EDIT: Please be nice. I realize this post comes across as very naive in certain ways...

[Invincible Summer]

It looks like they could be, but why does it matter?

[¿Que?]

It looks like they could be, but why does it matter?

Well, I guess it sort of challenges my own assumptions about who the people are that partake in these sorts of activities. Not to mention that the mannequin limbs you see in the video were used to smash up a strip bar. That's a clear anti-sexism message they're sending.

[Foldered]

Well, I guess it sort of challenges my own assumptions about who the people are that partake in these sorts of activities.

Good. If before you saw this video, you assumed women weren't capable/didn't do things like this, then your assumptions need to be challenged.

[bcbm]

yes, women riot. people of color, too. and homosexuals, transpeople, men and just about everyone else.

[¿Que?]

Good. If before you saw this video, you assumed women weren't capable/didn't do things like this, then your assumptions need to be challenged.

Capable? I would never think women incapable of smashing windows! However, I admit, I always pictured the typical Black Block Anarchist as a white, middle to working class male in his early to mid twenties. You have to admit that while society pushes an aggressive, militant, and often destructive persona on the male psyche, women are rarely encouraged to express these tendencies. This seeps into the very core of our consciousness, which we betray through tone of voice, mannerisms, and other social cues.

The fact that women are taking part in these acts I think is a topic which should be explored. I don't think saying, so what? is an appropriate response. It speaks to a general inclusiveness of this particular movement, at least in terms of gender. Thus, rather than saying, so what? we should ask why? and how?

Particular to the Black Block tactic is the attempt at erasing all sense of identity to the outside world. All we see is a bunch of people with covered faces, dressed in all black, any one indistinguishable from the next. That's the point. It's a tactical advantage not to be able to be singled out. If in terms of identity (sex, race, orientation, nationality etc) the group is a heterogeneous mix, in which all differences are erased in a collective act of aggression against symbols of capitalism, then I would consider these people to have achieved a significant thing.

[¿Que?]

yes, women riot. people of color, too. and homosexuals, transpeople, men and just about everyone else.

Yes, but do they riot at the same time, for the same reasons, and in the same way?

[Foldered]

I don't think saying, so what? is an appropriate response.

Neither do I, but I do think "This surprises you?" is an appropriate response. It's not surprising, but I also have a mandate of not falling prey to homogenizing.

If in terms of identity (sex, race, orientation, nationality etc) the group is a heterogeneous mix, in which all differences are erased in a collective act of aggression against symbols of capitalism, then I would consider these people to have achieved a significant thing.

I agree, but again, does it surprise you that the fight against capitalism is not a homogenous one?

[bcbm]

Yes, but do they riot at the same time, for the same reasons, and in the same way?

sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[¿Que?]

Neither do I, but I do think "This surprises you?" is an appropriate response. It's not surprising, but I also have a mandate of not falling prey to homogenizing.

I agree, but again, does it surprise you that the fight against capitalism is not a homogenous one?

Well, I admit, I was pleasantly surprised. But I don't think it is from some latent sexism which I've managed to repress. At least I hope not.

I am quite cynical about the nature of the fight against capitalism, particularly from an ethnic, racial, sex and sexual orientation point of view.

People form communities based on commonalities, and many times these will revolve around sex, race, and sexuality, even if those things are not part of the official platform. It's the way it is, Malcolm X described it in his autobiography when he talked about the Haj.

It does surprise me because I am constantly amazed how much old and subtle prejudices can infect even the most radical and committed revolutionaries.

[Invincible Summer]

People form communities based on commonalities, and many times these will revolve around sex, race, and sexuality, even if those things are not part of the official platform.

One can also see that oppression on the fronts that you mentioned can be a uniting factor.

But if you haven't noticed, many modern leftists don't really identify based on sex/race/etc as much as a common goal of toppling capitalism.

[Foldered]

But if you haven't noticed, many modern leftists don't really identify based on sex/race/etc as much as a common goal of toppling capitalism.

This is something I'd like to emphasize. For most involved in the left, the common goal is toppling capitalism, as in, Anarcho-Feminists and Green-Anarchists, for example, ultimately plan on toppling capitalism, whether their tactics differ slightly or not.

[¿Que?]

One can also see that oppression on the fronts that you mentioned can be a uniting factor.

But if you haven't noticed, many modern leftists don't really identify based on sex/race/etc as much as a common goal of toppling capitalism.

True, but I think at times there develops mechanisms of exclusion which tend to alienate some groups from others, or at least some individuals from certain groups.

I'll give you one example from experience, right off the top of my head. While most leftists will agree on the issue of solidarity with Mexican and Latin American undocumented immigrants in the U.S., there exists the problem that many times, events such as protests, marches and community outreach is conducted in Spanish. This language barrier, then, becomes a veritable social barrier, which often times excludes them from participation. How is someone supposed to organize non-English speaking workers, if they can't successfully communicate with them. It is nearly impossible.

If the overthrow of capitalism is kept at the forefront of the movement, then obviously, this creates the possibility of more inclusive participation. Sadly, often times, this just isn't the case. The pride movement, for example, is centered around reforms, much like the feminist movement was in the past. Those whose interests lie in social revolution and dismantling the existing social order are considered extremists and are often accused of alienating the masses. Many gay and lesbians are members of the petty bourgeois. They like capitalism. They show up when their rights within the capitalist order is challenged, such as prop 8, or when they feel the regime of capital is not fully acknowledging their (bourgeois) rights, in a sense, when they feel it's not liberal enough. But make no mistake. These people have absolutely no interest in the overthrow of capitalism. None at all.

The anti-war movement goes along much similar lines. The IVAW, for example, is the darling of the anti-war movement, often seen cavorting alongside real leftists organizations with a real anti-capitalist message. Yet I myself witnessed an IVAW speak, front and center, at a socialist event, in which this individual felt compelled more than once to stress that he was not a socialist!

I guess my point is that while it may be nice to be inclusive, this often comes at a price. When you have a truly heterogeneous mix of individuals, with the common goal of toppling capitalism, then your movement has achieved something great. Anything less than that, you can expect fragmentation just as soon as the movement begins to gain momentum.

[BeerShaman]

Maybe it's just a form of hate for dressing tendencies and the lifestyle passed by them. Or also, the fact that lifestyles are commercialised through these tendencies e.t.c... is faced by that person this way. Myself I'd like to screw this way either a male or a female "dress-clone" (lol this phrase came into my mind, found no better), just out of disgust for the lifestyle, clothing and body stereotype advertising.

[counterblast]

The fact that women are taking part in these acts I think is a topic which should be explored. I don't think saying, so what? is an appropriate response. It speaks to a general inclusiveness of this particular movement, at least in terms of gender. Thus, rather than saying, so what? we should ask why? and how?

1) I'm not sure why you're assuming genders.

2) I'm still not sure why this is so surprising.

This is nothing new.

Just two months ago, a black bloc of New York anarchist womyn led a "take back the night" action where they smashed out the windows of gentrifying businesses in Brooklyn. http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11127

In Asheville, NC, the infamous Asheville 11, who formed a black bloc and destroyed yuppie-owned art galleries (so-called "local businesses"); at least half of them were womyn. http://www.profaneexistence.org/late...e-asheville-11


And during the G20 in Pittsburgh, the Black Bloc organized by Bash Back!, was almost completely made up of trans people, queer people, and cis womyn.

+ YouTube Video

[¿Que?]

1) I'm not sure why you're assuming genders.

2) I'm still not sure why this is so surprising.

On question number 1, I'm not sure what you mean by assuming genders. Do you mean the fact that I'm asking if the people in the segment of the video I posted are women?

On 2, it's because I am mostly unfamiliar with Anarchism until recently, and because I associated Black Block tactics with male aggression and frustration.

Part of the issue is that women are increasingly forced into male roles in order to succeed. They must take on masculine characteristics so as to fight and challenge their subordination. Aggression, violence, militancy, force, power, these have historically been male territory. Not because they are innate to men, but because they have been socially constructed through historical forces.

It suggests two paths for the liberation of women. Force men to accept women's values, or take on as their own the values and characteristics of men. Either way, the point is to erase the gender dichotomy. I don't know if either one is a better tactic or how to accomplish these goals.

In the context of the Anarchist movement, it is clearly the latter option which pervades. I'm really curious as to the implications of this.

So I was surprised. Call me sexist, naive, uninformed, I really don't care. Particularly, if it makes you feel better, more power to you. I don't pretend not to have assumptions about race, sex and all that. The thing is, I'm not afraid to challenge those assumptions, to test their validity, to see the reality and the falseness of them.

I'm not going to sit here and have faith in the inclusiveness of the left. I demand proof!

[counterblast]

Part of the issue is that women are increasingly forced into male roles in order to succeed. They must take on masculine characteristics so as to fight and challenge their subordination

Or perhaps they are taking on "masculine characteristics"; because they simply do not fit into prescribed gender roles...

"Embodying masculinity to be successful or to be taken seriously by men", probably has nothing to do with it.

Anarchist women have a long history of taking part in violence; Emma Goldman and the women of the Spanish Revolution, being the best known.

[¿Que?]

Or perhaps they are taking on "masculine characteristics"; because they simply do not fit into prescribed gender roles...

"Embodying masculinity to be successful or to be taken seriously by men", probably has nothing to do with it.

I honestly don't know if you can draw a fine line distinguishing the two. Gender roles result from a process of socialization. While a woman may decide to learn how to use a firearm and in this respect taking on masculine characteristics as a conscious act, more often than not, gender identity is transmitted through subtle and not so subtle social cues. I'm not a woman, so I can only speculate as to why some women embody masculinity more and more successfully than others. I do believe, however, that whether we are talking of a conscious act or the result of socialization, and whether we are talking about men or women, taking on a different gender role at some point meant for the individual the satisfaction of some need, whose importance or perceived importance superseded the stigma and general disadvantage of gender transgression.

To say that women are forced into male roles in order to succeed is rather simplistic, I'll admit. It is only part of the story. But to deny it completely is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I should also point out that historical/material forces have also played a role in gender transgression. It is not simply a question of motivation. In the late 70's and early 80's the United States went through a period of de-industrialization, reduced welfare benefits, a sharp decline in union activity and other economic forces which resulted in the dramatic decline in income of the average "nuclear" family. Many women were "forced" to find jobs, which in some ways liberated their financial dependence on men, but in other ways, created problems, such as the infamous "second shift". My point is that these women were forced to take on the role of auxiliary breadwinners, as a result of economic conditions, rather than as a conscious act or even a process of socialization...just something to consider.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

1) I'm not sure why you're assuming genders.

2) I'm still not sure why this is so surprising.

This is nothing new.

Just two months ago, a black bloc of New York anarchist womyn led a "take back the night" action where they smashed out the windows of gentrifying businesses in Brooklyn. http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11127

In Asheville, NC, the infamous Asheville 11, who formed a black bloc and destroyed yuppie-owned art galleries (so-called "local businesses"); at least half of them were womyn. http://www.profaneexistence.org/late...e-asheville-11


And during the G20 in Pittsburgh, the Black Bloc organized by Bash Back!, was almost completely made up of trans people, queer people, and cis womyn.

+ YouTube Video

I wish I had gone to the take back the night action.

[gorillafuck]

In Asheville, NC, the infamous Asheville 11, who formed a black bloc and destroyed yuppie-owned art galleries (so-called "local businesses"); at least half of them were womyn. http://www.profaneexistence.org/late...e-asheville-11

Don't glorify things like this, I didn't think this would ever come up on this site but one of those who was arrested for that is a cousin of mine and if she is found guilty then she is really fucked.