sexism and assault in anarchist circles

[rioters bloc]

hey all

something i wrote today for an anarchist zine. so it's centred around anarchists but it could apply to many areas of the left.


I am a sexist.

I’m a wom*n and a sexist.

This is not something that I pride myself in. It’s something that I’d rather not publicise at all. The reason I do so is that I think it’s hypocritical to criticise the shortcomings (to put it mildly) of others without being aware of your own. Anarchists have a tendency of taking the moral high ground on a range of issues. We often theorise about revolution, and we partake in activities which will ideally further our cause, without acknowledging and addressing how we are complicit in the oppression we purport to oppose. There have been writings about sexism in anarchist subcultures, and suggestions have been made on how to counter it and eradicate it altogether, but it continues to pervade our circles. There is a lot of good in anarchist communities, and it saddens me a little that my first piece of writing for an anarchist zine is one which levels serious criticism at anarchists, but it’s something that I think is necessary, for my own piece of mind even if it’s not something which people agree with or choose to adopt.

This piece is specifically about how sexism in anarchist circles manifests itself in sexual assault and rape. It’s not grounded in theory of the dead white male variety, or in any other, to be honest. It’s based on my own experiences and observations on relationships between male-identifying anarchists and female-identifying anarchists (who I’ll refer to as men and wom*n throughout. I recognise and support transgendered people in their struggle. I also recognise that sexual assault can and does occur between people of the same sex. For the purposes of this article though, I’m going to restrict my analyses of power relations to men and wom*n in heterosexual relationships).

Like I said at the start, I am sexist. When a man speaks over me and I don’t call him out on it, when I accept a man ignoring another wom*n’s ideas because he doesn’t think they’re worth as much as the man’s standing next to her (who says exactly the same thing&#33, when I don’t challenge the way collectives organise and allocate jobs when they do so in a way which disadvantages wom*n; I am legitimising the idea that wom*n are inferior and that their opinions and actions aren’t as worthwhile as a man’s. That is sexism in its most obvious and ugliest form. There has been some discourse on the way that anarchist men exercise the kind of sexism that is present in the rest of society, and the way that anarchist wom*n put up with it because that’s what wom*n are socialised to do. Even on its own, it’s something that is deplorable and completely contradicts everything that we claim to stand for. It becomes even worse when this equates to anarchist men violently forcing themselves onto wom*n or coercing them into sex, under the guise of politics.

And it does happen. It seems to me all too often, male anarchists have been very vocal and supportive of sexual liberation, while remaining silent on the issue of liberation along the lines of sex, except through token gestures of solidarity. And often, this is done under the pretext of respecting autonomy. Now, while I have always defended autonomous organising of oppressed groups, there is little point in having autonomous collectives if ‘white’ people, men, ‘straights’ don’t recognise their involvement in oppression and try and change themselves accordingly. Domination is a two-sided phenomenon, and it angers me when people sanctimoniously claim to recognise autonomy to cover up what is essentially laziness, complacence, and a reluctance to self-criticise. People often accept what benefits them and ignore the things that require them to actually rethink their behaviour and change it accordingly. In the same way that many male anarchists refuse to see how their actions and language are explicitly sexist and chauvinistic, they embrace the idea of free love solely because it means that they will presumably directly benefit from more sexual pleasure.

Before I’m written off as being anti-sex, let me assure you that my issue is not with sex, but with politics being used to manipulate wom*n into having sex against their will. Like I said before, it does happen. And often! It seems that some anarchist men need to be reminded that no really does mean no, it doesn’t mean “I’m only saying no because I’ve been sexually repressed for so many years, please fuck me so I can be liberated.” Yes, that’s right! We don’t need anarchists telling us how we think and feel, we get enough of that from the broader society. It’s particularly manipulative because wom*n are made to feel as though if they don’t have sex with the man in question, they are somehow going against their politics, they are being counter-revolutionary, they are exhibiting bourgeois traits, they are silly and not politically mature. The pressure to have sex is therefore heightened; not only is the man imposing his gender on the wom*n to get her to acquiesce, but also uses his ‘activist cred’ – he is clearly more knowledgeable because he has more advanced views on sexuality and sex, and so to go against his wants would be diminishing her own standing. It’s particularly sickening because as anarchists, we are meant to be rejecting and abolishing all power structures, and rape, far from being just a desire for sexual pleasure, is first and foremost an exercise of authority and domination and in these circumstances, a reinforcement of patriarchy.

A female friend of mine told me about how soon after her entry into revolutionary politics, a man tried to manipulate her into having sex with him. She declined; he physically forced himself onto her. She managed to push him off and fled the room. He called out after her in disgust: “And you call yourself an anarchist!” She recalls that at the time, more than anything else she felt a sense of shame, as though she had done something that conflicted with what her ideals should have been as an anarchist. She wondered if she should go back and apologise and have sex with him, even though she wasn’t attracted to him or interested in him at all. She wondered if her newfound friends would think less of her. She wondered if this meant that she wasn’t a feminist after all. Nowadays, she only feels anger and repulsion. She says her relative newness and tentative grasp of theory made her feel vulnerable, and that man had exploited that weakness for his own sexual pleasure. Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated situation at all.

What I’ve found is that people find it hard to take criticism well, especially when that criticism accuses them of behaving in direct opposition to their ideological views, and especially when those views form a large part of their identity. This is true particularly when wom*n call men up on their sexism; the response is usually to become defensive, deny the charges, and (in secret or to her face) accuse the wom*n of being anti-sex or a man-hating lesbian separatist. This article wasn’t written in order for people to start pointing fingers and throwing around accusations, but for all of us to critique how we interact with one another and people outside the movement as well. It’s not easy to admit that you’re influenced to such a degree by the system you hate so much, but to truly overturn that system you need to know it well, and understand the degree to which it infiltrates

This was partly inspired by a male friend of mine who told me that he had recently begun to analyse his behaviour and attitude towards wom*n, and his perception of them, and he was distressed to find that he usually approached relationships with wom*n by thinking of them as potential partners. That led to him rethinking the sexual encounters he’d had with wom*n in the past, and it exposed to him the fact that there were times when had he gone through with it, it could have been interpreted as coercion. It’s something that I think needs to be taken up by everyone, and not just as an individual thing – because that just breeds a sense of guilt and shame – but as a collective issue that is quite prevalent in anarchist communities and should be addressed and defeated together. I’m not talking Mao-style denunciation meetings and frequent self-criticisms, but through open dialogue and admitting that we’re complicit in oppression but that we’re also willing to change that. Disengaging from the system goes beyond squatting and dumpster diving; it’s time we acknowledged and acted on that.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rioters bloc
A female friend of mine told me about how soon after her entry into revolutionary politics, a man tried to manipulate her into having sex with him. She declined; he physically forced himself onto her. She managed to push him off and fled the room. He called out after her in disgust: “And you call yourself an anarchist!” She recalls that at the time, more than anything else she felt a sense of shame, as though she had done something that conflicted with what her ideals should have been as an anarchist. She wondered if she should go back and apologise and have sex with him, even though she wasn’t attracted to him or interested in him at all. She wondered if her newfound friends would think less of her. She wondered if this meant that she wasn’t a feminist after all. Nowadays, she only feels anger and repulsion. She says her relative newness and tentative grasp of theory made her feel vulnerable, and that man had exploited that weakness for his own sexual pleasure. Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated situation at all.

I've heard this story before...left-wing guys using "revolutionary" politics to intimidate some young woman into bed.

It's shitty behavior and ought to be criticized harshly. We had to do that in an SDS group I was in back in the 60s once...because the women in the group were really pissed off -- rightfully so.

[redflag32]

I read that article with great interest,i will post it on a few forums i frequent for debate if thats ok with you?It is very brave of you to stand out by yourself and write this piece,well done comrade!

In relation to the article itself,i have to play dumb as i am not an anarchist and dont have the foggiest clue about what goes on in its circles,but if this is a wide spread thing it HAS to be stomped out,it goes completely against all revolutionary and humanist principles.Discusting

It has made me re-think my attitude towards women i encounter,and i have to admit i may have been guilty of behavour like this,although not on the scale of forcing sex on a woman,before.I take it you wrote this so individuals would re-think there approach to women etc... and it has worked in my case.Thank you!

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by redflag32@Jun 5 2006, 02:37 AM
I read that article with great interest,i will post it on a few forums i frequent for debate if thats ok with you?It is very brave of you to stand out by yourself and write this piece,well done comrade!

In relation to the article itself,i have to play dumb as i am not an anarchist and dont have the foggiest clue about what goes on in its circles,but if this is a wide spread thing it HAS to be stomped out,it goes completely against all revolutionary and humanist principles.Discusting

It has made me re-think my attitude towards women i encounter,and i have to admit i may have been guilty of behavour like this,although not on the scale of forcing sex on a woman,before.I take it you wrote this so individuals would re-think there approach to women etc... and it has worked in my case.Thank you!

thanks for the kudos it's greatly appreciated. i was a tad nervous about potential backlash but it should be ok.

i guess what i need to make clear though is that this isn't something which happens only in anarchist communities - i've heard of it in other communities of the leftist activist variety - but i felt that i could only speak on a community which i'd had direct involvement in.

[Martin Blank]

Great article. Unfortunately, this kind of crap takes place in all corners of the so-called "left". Years ago, when I was involved in another political organization, we actually had to expel someone because he thought it was OK to beat the shit out of his girlfriend. And the killer part of it was that he just went to another left group -- one that made a lot of noise about its "anti-sexism" and "women's rights" work -- and was accepted with open arms.

I sincerely hope the person who inspired you to write this goes beyond self-reflection and actually becomes more of a conscious fighter against women's oppression. Fighting sexism is not "women's work", and hopefully he'll be able to get other men to see that.

Miles

[Reuben]

excellent article.

communist league is right to state that fighting sexism is not 'women's work'. Just as the existence of gender studies departments in univrsities have the potential to give a green light for academics outside to go on being just as male-centric as ever there is a danger that autonomist politics enables organisations to essentially pigeon hole and formalise their duty to fight sexism rather than making it an aspect of their day t day existense.

Ideally organisation should recognise that it is essentially the prerogative of progressive women to formulate responses to sexism and patriarchy but at the same the duty of the organisation as a whole to fight for gender equality. Whether their is an inesacapable tension between these two principles, I am undecided.

[Black Dagger]

Well written article RB, which zine did you write this for? And can i get a copy please?

[drain.you]

Good article and I'll second comrades Black Dagger's request if possible *feels cheeky*

I have never really been in a leftist group in 'real-life' to have seen or heard of this kind of manipulation of leftist theory.

I have to admit that I hate how I can sometimes judge a wom*n on their physical looks rather than personality and thoughts. I know I want to justify myself by saying that people's first impressions come from how another person appears physically but when I first meet a guy because I dont have any attraction to guys I don't judge them on their looks as much and wait to decide what I think of them after talking and such. fuck, I hate my mind. I feel like I have a mental problem, I really do.

What I want to know is how we can get rid of sexism that has been built into us by society and how to combat it in society. I mean its easy enough to say 'Hey, you cant not give that wom*n a job purely because she is a wom*n" but how do you combat the things that we seem to do automatically, the minor things which negatively affect wom*n.

man, i feel bad.

[TC]

I think i've been complaining about male chauvinism in anarchist circles for some time now...most in the commieclub though.

Anarchist group dynamics (and although i'm not an anarchist i have been in a number of predominatly anarchist groups) i think unfortunetly really lend themselves to being run by dominate, aggressive male personas, because when you have so called "consensus" based decision making, rather than each individual having an equal amount of influence and input, its more likely that the loudest, most forceful obnoxious guy controls the dialog until everyone reaches his 'consensus.'

Theres also an attitude that personal sexual "liberation" is somehow a prerequisite for being politically active...where the definition of "sexual liberation" is strangely convenient for pushy straight guys.

We actually had a thread here earlier where someone was arguing that only wanting sex within a relationship was "selfish.":
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/ind...howtopic=50100

I also think theres a very general macho, male chauvinist tough-guy attitude. Some of the flames from uh, several RAAN members (which is to my knowlege an all male organization) have a really aggressive and threatening male chauveinist bent to them:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292071798

Just as an example, (not to mention all of the photos of their macho poses with guns...sure actual resistance fighters like Leila Khaled in Rioters Bloc's avatar might be photographed with weapons because they use them, but for a bunch of american guys its just macho posturing.)

[drain.you]

I hate people who use politics to justify there own fucked up actions. The sexual liberation arguement is one and another is 'anarchists' that seem to think that being an anarchist means stealing and just generally breaking the law. Gives the left a bad name

[LSD]

I think i've been complaining about male chauvinism in anarchist circles for some time now...

Tragic, do you really need to turn this into another sectarian "Anarchists are all chauvinist" thread?

Can't we just agree that patriarchy and sexual intimidation have no role in the revolutionary left, no matter what a party calls itself?

I really don't see how it matters whether one calls onself a "Marxist", an "Anarchist", or anything else; one one attempts to effectively rape another person, they have no place within progressive politics.

Anarchist group dynamics (and although i'm not an anarchist i have been in a number of predominatly anarchist groups) i think unfortunetly really lend themselves to being run by dominate, aggressive male personas

As opposed to, say, the Bolsheviks?

I think that "dominate, aggressive male personas" tend to dominate in leftist politics, because they tend to dominate in all politics.

Unfortunately, it's just another social manifestation of patriarchal oppression; men tend to be more politically active than women and, more importantly, tend to be socialized to "lead", whereas women are routinely instructed to "submit".

Obviously this situation needs to change, but I think that it's counterproductive to imagine that this is a "unique" problem of the left or, even more ridiculously, of Anarchism alone.

because when you have so called "consensus" based decision making, rather than each individual having an equal amount of influence and input, its more likely that the loudest, most forceful obnoxious guy controls the dialog until everyone reaches his 'consensus.'

Well, that's largely because "consensus-based decision making" is a load of horse shit and has a lot more to do with personality and intimidation than it does with democracy or populism.

Unfortunately, however, those attributes are not restricted to distasteful "Anarchist" organizations.

After all, when it comes to cults of personality, no leftist group has come close to matching the extraordinary achievements of the Maoists and Trotskyists.

Bob Avakian? The "Little Red Book"? "Reason in Revolt"? The "International Executive Committee of the Fourth International"?

Consensus "decisions" may be nonsensical hippy bullshit, but it's hardly any worse than centralist authoritarian "iron discipline". If anything, I'd say the real lesson here is that, once again, power is an inherently corrupting force and must be limited to all possible degrees -- and that means both official and de facto powers.

Theres also an attitude that personal sexual "liberation" is somehow a prerequisite for being politically active

I wouldn't say that sexual liberation is a "prerequisite" for political activity, although more often than not they tend to go hand in hand.

There's a reason, after all, that the Conservative movement is so emphatically anti-sex; namely that they are extremely aware that wide-spread sexual liberation would significantly challange their moral "authority" over society.

Now, obviously, sex is only so important and anyone who claims that "sexual liberation" is the "core" of leftism is deeply misunderstanding politics; but it's equally dangerous to think that there's no role for cultural challanges within the revolutionary leftist paradigm.

...where the definition of "sexual liberation" is strangely convenient for pushy straight guys.

Again, that's an example of the pervasiveness of social patriarchy.

When one group dominates social interactions to the degree that men tend to, that influence cannot be simply "stopped" at the party doors. It's the same reason that, counterintuitively, so many "proletarian" leaders past and preasant haven't actually been proletarian themselves.

As I've said numerous times, oppressive social constructs are inherently pervasive, otherwise they wouldn't be a problem!

[piet11111]

very good article rioters bloc.

i must admit i also tend to look at women as potential partners but i hope its more of an age thing then anything else (june 13th i turn 21)

[Entrails Konfetti]

Well everyone else has said it, but I'll say it too. Good article RB.

On my behalf I try not think about sex within activism (though I haven't done that much activism).

[FinnMacCool]

Tragic Clown is an expert at trying to make very general arguments against anarchists from very specific and non relevant points of view:

Which is extremely difficult to understand consider how much of a broad back anarchism has.

For example: Bakunin and Proudhon. (And this is something that has had me boiled over for awhile, Tragic Clown) Both anarchists and both anti semetics.

Despite their anti semitism though, none of this has been reflected in their overall legacy to anarchists. Which makes the logic that all anarchists are anti semitic, pretty wild. Nor does it make the idea behind their legacy flawed because of their anti semitism. It also all too often, rarely noted that anti semitism was actually very very common in intellectual circles during those periods.

Now here comes Tragic once again, ready to raise her long arm of communist sectarianism against anarchists, this time for male chauvinism. Considering the fact that, unlike communists, anarchists, being against rulers of all types, do not subscribe to a certain train of thought, how can we possibily attack anarchists for either anti semitism or male chavunism?

Fogetting the fact, of course, that a persons language usually does not reflect their idealogy for the most part (especially when it has been commonly accepted in their society and they have been brought up with it since perhaps birth) how does the language used by them (which, admittedly, I haven't even bothered to look at it because it was probably most likely lead to a pointless debate on whether these comments are in fact sexist or not), what does this mean to the overal representation to anarchism? I'll tell you what it means; nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing.

Let me repeat that for the hard of hearing (or rather, perhaps, the hard of seeing) ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING.

To clear up a few more myths while I'm at it, Tragic Clown implied in another thread that Emma Goldman was 'evil' though of course, she did not specifically say that (though she made it quite clear when she said that she would rather have STALIN, yes Stalin the mass murderer, as a comrade then her and the other anarchists I mentioned earlier) for condeming abortion.

Okay. Condeming abortion. What does this exactly mean? Does it mean that she lobbied for a pro life party? That she voted conservative? That she advocated for restrictions to a womans natural right to abort? Absolutely not! She was, by those remarks, saying that social inequality was what caused most abortions and that she found it a shame. She did not say that abortion made someone a muderer. She perhaps had personal reasons for disliking abortion which is entirely her own. For example, a religious woman who thinks life starts at conception but SUPPORTS a woman's right to pro choice. How is this reactionary? She does not oppose a persons right to abort for political purposes, is she? Absolutely not. She is not using political means, violence, or other methods to discourage abortion and push down their rehetoric. She is holding an opinion while maintaining a womans natural right. It would be quite paradoxal for Emma Goldman to be a radical feminist and yet not support Pro choice.

But you know whats funny about the whole thing? Lets assume for a second that every single accusation Tragic Clown made against anarchists was somehow accurate. Would it make a shred of a difference?

Hell no.

Why?

Because anarchism has a broad back.

Now at last, Tragic, I think I've given you a decent length post to counter your sectarian bullshit that you posted in another thread.

[STI]

Great article. Really struck some chords. Mad props for having the balls (pun intended) to publish it.

[chimx]

Originally posted by TragicClown@Jun 5 2006, 12:20 AM
(not to mention all of the photos of their macho poses with guns...sure actual resistance fighters like Leila Khaled in Rioters Bloc's avatar might be photographed with weapons because they use them, but for a bunch of american guys its just macho posturing.)

since this last bit is directed at me, why don't you take your fucking presumptuous head out of your self-righteous ass and stop making judgements on my character based around me posting a picture of myself with a gun. its fucking montana. we shoot guns here at school. deal with it.

[Body Count]

I saw a documentary once that was shot in the 60's that dealt with the young leftist of the time (Generally called hippies). I can't even remember what th movie is called, but the camera man went up to a girl and started talking to her about sex and such in these movements, and she said something like "The problem is that many guys confuse free love with free sex".

I dunno...its just something thats always stuck with me.

[Raubleaux]

Wonderful article! This is definitely something that needs to be said.

FinnMacCool, like it or not, this kind of shit is much more common among anarchists than communists.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Raubleaux+Jun 5 2006, 04:57 PM--> (Raubleaux @ Jun 5 2006, 04:57 PM) Wonderful article! This is definitely something that needs to be said.

FinnMacCool, like it or not, this kind of shit is much more common among anarchists than communists. [/b]

hmmm i don't know about that. is there any kinda statistical research done on this sort of thing, does anyone know? it might be interesting to compare.

BD

Well written article RB, which zine did you write this for? And can i get a copy please? smile.gif

sure fing darl

it was written for mutiny zine... i think i've told you about mutiny before, the anarchist anti-war affinity group? it was through them that i did the anti-war anz actions last year (monty cantsin will remember this )

cool peeps.

you should submit

[Raubleaux]

Originally posted by rioters bloc
hmmm i don't know about that. is there any kinda statistical research done on this sort of thing, does anyone know? it might be interesting to compare.

I seriously doubt it. The sexual behavior of "anarchist" kids is not a hot topic in any sociology department that I know of. However, it is pretty obvious to me that this kind of behavior is more common among anarchists. There are several reasons I believe this.

One is that anarchism did not become in vogue until the 1960s. The popularization of anarchism on the American left coincided with the "sexual revolution" and all the youth counterculture associated with the 1960s and 70s.

Anarchism tends to be popular among immature young people, particularly adolescent males who are more prone to this kind of behavior. Communists, on the other hand, tend to belong more to the old guard, and while they are not sexually repressed by any means, they don't seem to have the same obsession with getting off that young leftists of today do.

This kind of behavior was pretty unheard of before the 1960s -- when it started to crop up in organizations like SDS, the Weathermen, etc. Basically any group from that era that adopted "free love" or "sexual liberation" as part of its philosophy had problems with women feeling a great deal of pressure to make themselves sexually available.