Debate sobre el sexismo en Dijon

Leo Vidal <LeoVidal@aol.com>

9 de mayo de 1999

El viernes hubo un debate sobre las expresiones de la dominación masculina en la vida

cotidiana. Fue organizado por un colectivo autónomo de mujeres en Dijon (Francia). Cuatro
mujeres introdujeron la discusión, hablando sobre las esferas públicas, personales y políticas.

Sus introducciones ofrecieron muchos de los pensamientos, conclusiones y dudas de estas

mujeres, después de cinco meses de reuniones exclusivamente para mujeres, y formularon
demandas claras y abiertas a los hombres activos en los grupos anarquistas de Dijon,
pidiéndoles responder sus preguntas y empezar a trabajar en estos asuntos.

Las introducciones fueron un marco verdaderamente fuerte para el debate pues ofrecieron
mucho, personal y políticamente, y fueron una invitación abierta a los hombres a empezar a
trabajar con las mujeres y no estancarse en viejas conductas sexistas masculinas.

Pese a ello, las primeras reacciones de los hombres fueron de negación.

"Nosotros también vivimos esta competencia. Tenemos opresiones al interior de los grupos de
hombres". ... "Escuchamos lo que ustedes dicen, y todo tiene que ver con educación: si no
recibes suficiente amor de tu padre, te comportas en una forma dominante". ... "Lo que ustedes
dicen está bien. Pero ¿por qué, aun cuando las mujeres organizan un debate, son pocas las
mujeres presentes?" Etcétera.

No tomé notas de todas estas reflexiones, pero probablemente es fácil reconocer esto: los
hombres recargando el peso sobre las mujeres, preguntándoles qué deben hacer, cómo deberían
cambiar, qué es precisamente dominante en su conducta...

Algo muy desafiante fue que las mujeres pidieron una y otra vez a los hombres que
respondieran, que compartieran su trabajo con ellas. Pero me temo que lo que al final quedó
claro es que muy pocos hombres trabajaron en este asunto en una forma seria. No se escuchó
una sola respuesta satisfactoria.

Lo positivo, pese a lo anterior, fue el ambiente abierto y desprovisto de hostilidad. Ninguno de

los hombres atacó en una forma abiertamente hostil -- aun cuando las actitudes podían expresar
desinterés e hiperseguridad masculina. También positiva fue la discusión sobre los elementos
concretos en la escena anarquista en ese lugar -- la música que se escuchó, la forma en que fue
organizado el evento, la presencia de un bar. La dominación masculina concreta fue puesta
sobre el tapete y discutida.

Por mi parte, traté de contrarrestar la tendencia del "enriquecimiento masculino" que tan
frecuentemente observamos en las discusiones sobre el sexismo: los hombres insistiendo que
deberían ganar y ganarán mucho en su desafío al sexismo. Traté de destacar que el
profeminismo se trata de desafiar la dominación masculina y apoyar la causa de las mujeres, no
de obstaculizarla o desviarla a asuntos de "desarrollo humano"; centrarnos en el poder y los
privilegios masculinos, no en el sufrimiento de los hombres.

Varias mujeres hicieron notar que cuando hablé, los hombres escucharon más lo que yo dije que
cuando ellas dijeron exactamente las mismas cosas. Cuestionaron esta perversión en el debate:
de nuevo un hombre tomando y recibiendo más espacio que las mujeres. No es la primera vez
que las mujeres señalan esto y lo desafían. Entonces, pienso que tendré que prestar más atención
a mantener la boca cerrada.
-------------------------

Discussing sexism (Dijon)

Leo Vidal
9 May 1999

Friday there was a debate on the expressions of male domination in daily life, organised by a
women's autonomous collective in Dijon (France). Four women introduced the discussion,
speaking about the public, personal and political spheres. Their intro's were really great because
they offered a lot of their thoughts, conclusions, doubts after five months of women-only
meetings, and they formulated clear, open demands towards the men active in the anarchist
groups of Dijon, asking these men to answer their questions and to get working on these issues.

These intro's were a really very strong setting for the debate because they offered a lot,
personally and politically, and they were an open invitation to men to get moving with them -
and not staying in old male sexist ways of behaving.

Despite that, the first reactions by men were of the order of denial.

"We men live this competition too you know, we have internal oppressions inside the men's
group."

"We hear what you say, and it's all about education: if you don't get enough love from your
father, you behave in a dominant way."

"It's great what you say, but how come even when women organise a debate there are so few
women present?"

Etcetera.

I didn't take notes of all these reflexions but you will probably recognise this: men pushing the
weight back on women, asking women what they should do, how they should change, what is
precisely dominant in their behaviour.

What was very challenging was that several women, again and again, asked these men to
answer, to share their work with them. But I'm afraid that what was understood at the end was
that very few men did work on this issue in a serious way, no satisfying answers were being
heard.

The positive thing despite of that was the quite open and non-hostile atmosphere. No men really
attacked in an open hostile way -- even though attitudes could express disinterest and male
hyperassurance. Positive too was the discussion on the concrete elements in the anarchist scene
over there -- what music was played, how the local squat was organised, the presence of a bar...
Concrete male domination was put on the table and discussed.

For my part I tried to counter the 'male enrichment' tendency that we see so often in discussions
on sexism: men insisting that they should and will win a lot in their challenge of sexism. I tried
to accentuate that pro-feminism is about challenging male domination and supporting women's
struggle, not slowing it down or misguiding it to 'human development' issues. Focusing on male
power and privileges, not male suffering.
Several women pointed out that when I spoke, men heard and listened more to what I said than
when women said exactly the same things. They challenged this perversion inside the debate --
again a man taking and receiving more place than women. This is not the first time that women
notify this and challenge it. So I think I should pay more attention to keeping my mouth shut.

This is not a full report, just some of my impressions.

Cheers,

Léo
LeoVidal@aol.com

Subject: Upgraded version of my article on

Anarchafeminism and anarchist liberalism
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 14:59:22 EDT
From: LeoVidal@aol.com

Anarcho-feminism and anarchist liberalism. Some elements of analysis

by Léo Vidal (LeoVidal@aol.com)

This article was written in a precise context. As a member of the anarchist library La Gryffe in
Lyon (France), I co-organised three days of discussion in May 1998 called "Three days for the
great evening". During this conference, many debates took place some of which were on the
question of sexism. At the time of the last debate about thirty feminists protested against the
course of the previous debates denouncing the sexism of the anarchist movement and the
impossibility of really discussing male domination -- in general and in the anarchist movement.
Following the publication by these feminists of a text exposing the motivations of this anarcho-
feminist action , four men of La Gryffe wrote a reply called "Anarchy and the women's
movement". The article below is based on this article and analyses a
phenomenon of a general nature: men, believing that they are the center of
the world, act, think and write without taking into account their status of
dominance, therefore without taking account of the fact that they are part of a socially
constructed group which is the sex class of men. Thus, they consider themselves universal while
they are dominant and they deny de facto the feminist criticism of the social relations of the
sexes. This seems to me incompatible with any claim of a radical left and anarchist nature, i.e.
the opposition to any form of domination and exploitation be it racism, or lesbophobia and
homophobia, or sexism, or capitalism...

Regarding feminist claims, the anarchist movement uses various strategies of defence of the
male status quo. If the prevalent reaction towards feminists is still formed by denial, ridicule and
violence, another strategy passes by a liberal discourse celebrating the diversity from the points
of view. The recognition of the founded good of feminism is then limited to a right of quite
specific existence. It seems significant to me to analyse which place anarchist men leave, grant,
give to feminism and to show the reactionary functions of the liberal discourse - discourse
which is not limited to the anarchist movement but which is even more unacceptable there
considering the anarchist will to fight against any form of domination.

A first formal element expresses very well the negation of the male position of dominance.
Indeed, the four male signatories develop throughout their text a position of neutrality, of
exteriority, even of objectivity via "it was up to us", "the difficulty of getting us together", "we".
The text does not practically anywhere express the located position of the authors: no reference
is made to their statute of dominance. This quite particular position of dominance is thus made
invisible even as it is the prerequisite for men to develop a discourse celebrating diversity.
Indeed what the dominant ones can perceive as diversity of perspectives is lived by dominated
like the absence of freedom and real diversity. It is thus not a mistake that the neutral and plural
French "we" (on and nous respectively) criss-cross this text: they express the blindness of these
men towards their particularity, the specificity of domination and, logically, towards the
domination to which women are subjected.

If these men do not recognise themselves in their position of dominance, they are nonetheless -
in the same way as myself. We benefit from the male domination which structures the entire
society and often actively perpetuate it through our way of speaking, glance, behaviour.... Our
life is more pleasant due to the exploitation of women (e.g. their domestic, relational,
communicative services) and we have more choices due to the restriction of the choices of
women (e.g. the fact that women do the domestic and breeding of children work is the condition
of our success on the educational, professional and activist level). However these men take a
different path from the profeminists by choosing to make invisible their status of dominance
and to deny the deeply socio-political nature of male domination by developing this discourse:

"The anarchist days were open, without exclusive, like the project of Gryffe wants it, with all
the components and points of view of the anarchist movement. However, some of them regard
the women's struggle as secondary or do not perceive the importance of their stakes. Others,
more marked still, denounce feminism, consider, from their point of view, than feminism is
locked up in a sectarian and particularist dead end that opposes a questioning of the social order
and, finally, that is detrimental to Women's Liberation. It is like that. All these points of view
equally contribute to the composition of the anarchist movement..."

This discourse is a liberal discourse and non-anarchist in my eyes because it attributes an

equivalent value to thoughts which are opposed to the domination and the exploitation of
women as to thoughts which deny or make invisible this domination. It does not seem necessary
to me to show that the anarchist movement has known and possesses tendencies that are anti-
Semitic, misogynist, revisionist and that it is necessary to fight against these tendencies in the
same way which it is necessary to fight against the anti-Semitism, the misogyny or the
revisionism of our Western society. However it is the opposite which these men defend with
regard to feminism. Feminism is, according to them, the expression of a point of view, of a
current of thought like are for example anti-organisational anarchism, anarchist individualism,
anarcho-syndicalism and it would deserve the same consideration as the anti-feminism of
certain anarchists. I have some difficulties with understanding what founds this categorisation:
what makes it possible to put feminism among the various anarchist tendencies and not among
these political minimal requirements which are anti-racism or anti-capitalism? In my opinion,
no reasoning can justify this and only the not-recognition of one's dominant position allows
depoliticizing to this point the anarchist feminist analyses, delegitimizing anarchist feminist
actions and to thus rationalise the defence of one's male interests. Because, in my opinion, it is
all about this: the celebration of a certain diversity as long as it does not call into question the
authors as men benefiting of an exploitative system. Moreover, this celebration of diversity is
quite relative because it is limited to discourse and does not relate at all to the implementation of
this discourse. Because the concrete application would touch the concrete interests of the
dominant ones - as the feminist intervention during the anarchist days of May testifies. In the
same way, the powers in place in our Western society allow a relative diversity of discourses -
even the expression of major criticisms of this system - as long as these discourses remain
discourses and are not applied in order to transform the concrete organisation of the society, as
long as the rules of the game are not changed. "Think what you want, express it, comply with
the rules that we fix and all is for best in Brave New World". How can one articulate on the one
hand the development by the dominant ones of a precise and strict regulation of social relations
and on the other hand the fact that they develop a liberal discourse celebrating diversity? Would
this discourse be a decoration behind which a precise machinery functions crushing some for
the benefit of the others? It thus seems to me that the fundamental stake behind all these words
is the defence of a male status quo. The refusal of a personal and collective questioning. The
refusal of a criticism of oneself as dominant. The refusal of a concrete change of relations
within the anarchist movement - for the benefit of women and not of men. It is for that reason
that the authors write:

"Because they are due to the totality of social relations, to the totality of the social order wherein
we live and to the roots of this order, dominance included in male/female relations, like all other
relations of dominance, cannot be solved locally, inside a collective whatever it is (even non-
mixed paradoxically). To set this as the top priority inside this collective is an absurd and
impossible task which, instead of freeing, and exactly because of its impossibility, multiplies on
the contrary, as do religious groupings, the instruments and the relations of oppression."
[emphasis added]

This reminds me of the liberal discourse concerning the criticisms of heterosexism and
lesbo/homophobia: "Me, I am not homophobic. Queers have the right to live their life... but they
shouldn't touch me or my children! Because me, I am not a faggot!" A social domination is
recognised and at the same time one does not want to know oneself implied, touched, directly
concerned even co-responsible. A more anarchist answer - in my opinion - would be to
recognise ourselves as sexist, heterosexist and to try to understand in what way we are it and
how we can act on it - by listening to the principal ones concerned, the feminists, the lesbians.
As writes Fabienne in her text in number 12 of the revue La Griffe, there is a job to be done, and
it starts with the public recognition of the problem.

It is necessary for us to work at an autonomous temporary zone of less domination, instead of

defending in an egoistic way a permanent zone of not fighting against the domination. Isn't this
paradoxical for anarchists to deny at this point any possibility of liberating experiences within a
collective or movement? These experiments do take place concerning informal power via the
rotation of tasks, the turns of speaking, the refusal of permanent mandates. Why couldn't one
try today to transform the social relations between the sexes within our movement? It is not a
question, as the authors affirm in a quite reducing way, to make it "the primary objective" but to
make it a significant objective among others. And it is exactly that which fear these men in my
opinion: of having to put concrete questions about their behaviour and attitude to change them
according to the freedom of the others; to have to pass over a male selfishness to go towards
women and their multiple claims of justice.

Rather than to denounce with arrogance the so-called "fetishism, communautarism, separatism"
of the anarcho-feminists, we should start perceiving the male fetishism centred around the penis
and the bollocks - fetishism which can be observed easily through the multiple phantasms of
castration which are not long in being expressed when the woman-men relations are questioned.
Of deconstructing male communautarism and its male solidarity beyond ideological differences.
It's this male solidarity that makes men nearly always form a front against women and
feminism. And a concrete example confirms in my opinion that this solidarity is a significant
stake. I often heard anarchist men express their rejection of the "politically correct" and to assert
the right to a sexist joke, a misogynist or lesbophobic insult - in the name of the freedom of
expression. However, the stake is not as much freedom of expression but male solidarity:
"humour (sexist, racist, homo/lesbophobic...), in the adhesion which it requests, translates the
power relations between social groups, and by the same one between individuals."

The liberal response to feminism succeeds this inversion which consists in particularising a
claim of justice and in making invisible a relation of domination by posing like neutral an unjust
state of things. The goal of this article is thus twofold. On the one hand, to show at which point
the liberal discourse serves anarchist men in their refusal of feminism in its global and
transversal dimension. It is used to lock up the feminist analysis in the field of tastes and
colours. It amounts, concretely, to putting on an equal footing on the one hand analyses who
allot the responsibility for domestic male violence against women to these same women
(provocation, masochism...) and on the other hand analyses who perceive this violence as an
element of political repression against women on behalf of the class of men. In an ultimate way,
it is an apology for the law of the strongest for which reason does not have any reason to exist.
On the other hand, the aim of this article is to actively contribute to a state wherein feminism is
not regarded any more as a perspective but as a political minimal requirement. Our education of
dominance is omnipresent and structures us but it does not oblige men at all to perpetuate our
individual predominance at the relational or collective level. We have the possibility of acting
differently, of opening up towards the analyses and feelings of feminists and of taking part in
their fight against sexism - when we wish it. We can fight alongside women - even in a
non-mixed way - against interiorized or institutional sexism. It is enough to be ready to break
with the egoistic defence of our interests of dominants and to break with these men around us
who refuse to call themselves into question.