Melbourne Anarcho-Queer group...expressions of interest.
Sep 24 2009 05:18
#32
Jared wrote:
I don't see any problem in having a queer anarchist group within the wider Australian movement. I don't think they are saying that Queer struggle is the ONLY struggle, rather that as someone who is not hetrosexual, it may be advantageous to organise with like-minded individuals. For example, I'm in a class struggle group here in Christchurch (Beyond Resistance), but we have a mens group, as well as a womens core — as a specific site to explore and discuss around issues relating to patriarchy, class, and organising.If we take seriously the claim that wider struggles must be connected to and part of class struggle, then it seems that attempts to do as much should be supported. Of course, if the group was based on pure identity politics, separatism or devoid of any class analysis then it should be open to criticism. Let's see how they go.
Solidarity,
Jared
Thank you so very much....this is kinda what I have been trying to say since the start of this thread.
Sep 24 2009 15:22
#33
Jared wrote:
we have a mens group
Admin: NO FLAMING.
Sep 24 2009 22:55
#34
weeler wrote:
Jared wrote:
we have a mens groupAdmin: NO FLAMING.
lol
incredible post
Sep 24 2009 23:03
#35
juozokas wrote:
weeler wrote:
Jared wrote:
we have a mens groupAdmin: NO FLAMING.
lol
incredible post
I dunno who the admin was, but props to that guy. Thread saved.
~J.
Sep 25 2009 02:27
#36
Not sure what people are talking about re mens group and the removed comment, but I'll assume it was negative... is there anywhere I can view it to reply? Do people have issues with the existence of a group dealing with why the left and class struggle groups tend to be so saturated with men? Seems like a practical extension of any functional movement to me...
Sep 25 2009 11:03
#37
it was a one-word insult, and was removed because this isn't libcommunity and weeler knows the rules
Sep 25 2009 11:34
#38
Yeh, I was trying to be funny. Sorry about that guys, seriously best of luck with your men's group I think the idea is very progressive and completely necessary.
Sep 25 2009 11:48
#39
damnit, we can't have a no sarcasm rule without becoming ABC 
Sep 25 2009 11:59
#40
At least I didn't point out that most anarchist groups are men's groups by default.
Sep 25 2009 15:30
#41
Quote:
most anarchist groups are men's groups
they sure are
Sep 25 2009 17:49
#42
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/75947/anarchist-mens-zine-out-now
Right, is this the kind of idea behind it?
Quote:
Men need to take responsibility and care of each other. It is only other men that could possibly understand how it feels to be unable to express ourselves. Only men know what it is like to become frozen inside, to be unable to articulate our feelings, to be so afraid of embracing our love and sharing it with others. We are afraid of our expectation to be financially responsible, to be providers for our families (or future families), to have our hair no longer than our ears, to be judged by our facial hair, to cook, clean, sew and cry.
As men we are so inherently divided to perform roles in our humanitarian interactions. Not only in institutionalized social spaces – but our very manners, our very language, our very actions and behaviour are all surrounded by and drawn from patriarchal methods. Society is run by men and therefore caters for our gluttony and desires. We are encouraged to be greedy and ignorant toward those of whom we have taken from. Sexual space, social space, and media are all relevant to tending our supposed desires – and are alienated from us through commodification, sponsorship, and capitalism. All of us have to buy back our feelings – but that’s another story.
As a man living in a society that tells me everything I need as a man is waiting for me in ‘town’, makes it really tough to transform my world. I have to let go of the ‘town world’ and redefine it for my ‘new world’ for myself and bring ‘my new world’ to the ‘town world’ together and challenge them both.
It is we men who are the only ones who can take responsibility and radical action to breakdown what the patriarchal, capitalist, fascist system provides us with. We must begin by taking responsibility for ourselves and our emotions – and it can only be done effectively by supporting each other.
Seriously like?
Sep 25 2009 18:00
#43
Hilarious.
~J.
Sep 25 2009 18:39
#44
Good post.
Sep 25 2009 18:56
#45
So's your face.
~J.
Sep 26 2009 00:02
#46
Quote:
to have our hair no longer than our ears
I identify as Gender:Man and yet my hair is longer than my ears. Ergo:
1. I am not actually a man.
2. I am breaking the gender rules and queering the system.
See how easy it is?
Sep 26 2009 18:51
#47
captain soap wrote:
Quote:
to have our hair no longer than our earsI identify as Gender:Man and yet my hair is longer than my ears. Ergo:
1. I am not actually a man.
2. I am breaking the gender rules and queering the system.See how easy it is?
Try wearing a skirt to work, though..
Sep 27 2009 22:23
#48
That particular article quoted was a past members opinion, and like most zines of collected opinions, shouldn't be understood as a group position. ZIne was before I joined (I did the cover design and screenprint), but it does have some good text in there. I'm not sure what others experiences you have all had in your respective groups, but some Aotearoa groups/campaigns have been super male dominated and quite sexist — hence the formation of that particular group.
I think there was similar stuff being done in the US/UK around the late 80's? I seem to remember seeing a magazine/publication... anyone know of it?
Sep 27 2009 23:24
#49
So you just sit around and feel guilty about having cocks then?
Sep 29 2009 08:21
#50
deleted
Oct 4 2009 15:51
#51
CaptainSoap, I don't think that you can assume from anything in the text that the author is in opposition to 'class struggle anarchists' or even that the author themselves is not interested in or informed by an understanding of class struggle as integral to revolutionary social change.
Actually from your response, it sounds like you have made quite a few other unsupported assumptions, and i for one am so deadly bored of people (almost always, interestingly, white hetero males) having such a "you're either with us or against us" attitude to class struggle.
Understanding class struggle as a vital and necessary element of revolutionary social change doesn't at all preclude an understanding of other types of oppression and the vital need for an anarchist response to them, this is essential to the formation of a real anarchist movement that can confront all elements of oppression and institutionalised dominance.
It's no suprise you don't find it insightful or that you find it depressing, from your response, it sounds like the kind of arrogant boys club anarchists the author criticises could quite possibly be you.
Quote:
it certainly read like it was written by someone who's completely misunderstood what class struggle is about, and has no particular desire to find out, preferring to bask in the safety of identity politics and congratulate fellow adherents about how radical they are being just by having sex.
How you can even discern this is the case from the text defies me, as it is clearly a critique of certain people's inability to develop a relationship of political solidarity with anarchists who face more complex oppression at the hands of the capitalist system which we all oppose.
There is nothing in this which dismisses class struggle anarchism, perhaps just certain people's interpretation of what class struggle actually means...
Quote:
Again, I don't really understand why you thought it was relevant to post this on a libertarian communist site. I don't think anyone here particularly cares that you "got arse fucked this morning by your lover before alighting from bed" or whatever; we just don't think it is particularly radical. Yes, people have criticised your group, but they aren't doing it because they are homophobes or because they don't believe people are oppressed for reasons of sexuality. The struggle for libertarian communism will necessarily involve struggles against oppression based on sexual identity, gender roles and what not. The problem is, that this perspective ultimately wishes to supercede/abolish such identities, whereas the perspective you seem to outline on these boards seems only to want to make them more concrete. We think it is necessary to try and remove all divisions in the class, while you don't seem to understand what class is, and seem to want to make such divisions bigger.
I would like it if you didn't make any assumptions about what i care about and what i don't, and more importantly what i consider "particularly radical".
I completely disagree with you and you don't speak for me when you say this.
And although i suppose it may be possible that you and every other user of this board got together in phone conference and made a consensus decision on the politics of anal sex and on the radical potential of loving consensual queer sex, i highly doubt it. It just sounds like you are taking on board the job of speaking on behalf of everyone here. How very anarchist of you.
Why not have the honesty and courage to say what you really mean - YOU don't think it's very radical. And while that's of no real concern to me, please don't try and peddle this off as a legitimate political retort or more importantly, as some mystically divined voice of everyone here.
Likewise, i don't think you really hold much weight in speaking on behalf of other people, their perspectives on whether people are oppressed because of their sexuality, or even if they are homophobes or not. You just don't know, maybe stick to just talking on behalf of yourself.
I'm really interested CaptainSoap, if "the struggle for libertarian communism will necessarily involve struggles against oppression based on sexual identity, gender roles and what not" (lets just excuse the "what not" for now..) then how is it at all irrelevant that an anarchist critiquing the lack of respect and solidarity given to them and their struggles by supposed comrades an irrelevant critique?
And more interestingly, if homophobia and sexism aren't confronted and challenged in the anarchist scene (it's not a movement at the moment) then how does this theoretical struggle against gender and sexual oppression take place? Will it wither away after the revolution (just hang on and put up with the redicule and degradation of your self, lovers and friends through the struggle and it will get better afterwards) or is it only necessary when challenged non-anarchists? (we all know anarchists can't be sexist or homophobic, so thet're probably just joking). Yeah right.
It's completely appropriate that this comrade has spoken out about the kind of homophobic shit they witnessed at this supposedly anarchist conference. And i don't think that makes them a confused lifestylist who misunderstands class struggle.
Thats just your twisted interpretation.
Quote:
The problem is, that this perspective ultimately wishes to supercede/abolish such identities, whereas the perspective you seem to outline on these boards seems only to want to make them more concrete. We think it is necessary to try and remove all divisions in the class, while you don't seem to understand what class is, and seem to want to make such divisions bigger
So i can only discern from this logic (or lack thereof) that challenging homophobia and sexism is "dividing 'the class' " and "making identities more concrete".
What divides anarchists and 'the class' is sexism, homophobia and racism, not the attempt to address them or the struggle against them.
Aiming to abolish identities necessarily requires the understanding of how and why they were constructed and of the cultural, economic/material, socio-political, consequences, outcomes, dynamics created by their construction.
The conference critique at least attempts this while all you propose is some magic fairy dust in the form of what could easily be mistaken for trotskyist dogma (i know! lets all remove all the divisions in the class without actually addressing the real underlying issues or listening to people who can tell us the most!). So go ahead, continue to ignore queers and women when they say there are some problems in how some people calling themselves anarchists address (or fail to address) homophobia and sexism in themselves. A process integral to solidarity and building a solid movement.
And while i'm at it, ChickenNugget, interacting with others who share similar experiences of very real political oppression can be incredibly effective in creating radical solidarity - in the form of direct action, education and support.
While addressing the state of the Australian anarchists movement is important, i fail to see how 'putting effort' into that issue precludes an anarchist queer collective. And if you think that creating an anarchist collective with a particular focus is "factionalisation" then i have to say i strongly disagree.
I suggest you both educate yourself on anarchist literature outside the stale male canon and then revisit your statements.
Oct 4 2009 15:51
#52
P.S. Riot_Queer, this is a great idea. I'd also love to know if there are any publications or communications that come from this collective.
Thanks also for the re-post of the Visions of Freedom conference analysis i found it insightful in parts, some of these critiques remain highly relevant in application to some sections of the current scene.
Oct 4 2009 17:45
#53
captainsoap, before you spend any time responding, I'd suggest you read his post here - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/ive-bone-pick-queer-anarchist-politics?page=7 
Oct 4 2009 23:07
#54
I think the group is going to end up as a Melbourne chapter of Bash Back.
For those who don't know about Bash Back here's a nice link for ya:
http://bashbacknews.wordpress.com/
...and here's is another interesting similar group as well:
Oct 5 2009 10:29
#55
Just got back from a holiday and can't be arsed responding at length (and, given that cal's response on the 'bone to pick' thread suggests they aren't actually interested in engaging, unsure that much response is warranted), but I am curious:
cal wrote:
the radical potential of loving consensual queer sex
This keeps coming up, and I really don't get what it's about. Can you please describe the mechanism by which queer sex (or any sex) offers the possibility of radically changing society?
Oct 5 2009 11:49
#56
captain soap wrote:
cal wrote:
the radical potential of loving consensual queer sexThis keeps coming up, and I really don't get what it's about. Can you please describe the mechanism by which queer sex (or any sex) offers the possibility of radically changing society?
i think this has to do with the following analysis:
Bash Back! wrote:
Members of Bash Back! must agree to:1. Fight for liberation. Nothing more, nothing less. State recognition in the form of oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation.
Quote:
Points of Unity...- We will call out the greed and consumerism inherent in mainstream gay identity. We are dedicated to fighting capitalism and it’s resulting inequalities.
- Our goal is to create a home for the culturally homeless.
- Assimilation is erasure. We resist assimilation in all its forms.
now if "state recognition" - i.e. bourgeois equality - is a problem then you need to fight bourgeois society. you don't do that as a queer, but as a proletarian. you may well be a queer proletarian with particular experiences of your own on account of your sexuality. but it seems the goal isn't to further the class struggle without relegating the concerns of queer proles to a secondary matter (that would be "assimilation" which is "erasure"), but to "create a home for the culturally homeless."
the attacks on "the greed and consumerism inherent in mainstream gay identity" and "assimilation" are rooted in identity politics and the assumption there's something inherently subversive in (queer) sexuality.* Gay Shame are open about this, saying "we will not be satisfied with a commercialized gay identity that denies the intrinsic links between queer struggle and challenging power." We don't want a commercial identity, we want a radical one; 'not gay as in happy queer as in fuck you' etc
but looking at the links above, Bash Back!'s anti-capitalism consists of protesting the Republican and Democrat National Conferences, and Gay Shame's consists of a 'series of oppressions' analysis (including "classism"), not a class analysis. it's just identity politics, only when you criticise crimethinc you get called boring as fuck, when you criticise this you're criticised of white hetero privelege or whatever.
the thing is queer workers will have particularities in struggle not shared - or even ignored or relegated - by other workers. but instead of organising on that basis, we just get assertions that who and how you fuck has "radical potential." christ i wish it did, fucking's a lot easier than taking on the bosses and the state.
* there was a similar argument over a special Pride newsletter produced by the AF a few months back. now i know comrades in Eastern Europe who have physically fought off fascist attacks on Pride parades. so yeah Pride can be a protest, but that doesn't mean the pink pound is a recuperation of an inherent radical potential, only that capitalism is as comfortable with commodifying sexuality as it is repressing it.
Oct 5 2009 13:45
#57
We all knew Joe was a racist, but who'd have thought he was a hetero privileged queer-basher too? Where will it end?
~J.
I don't see any problem in having a queer anarchist group within the wider Australian movement. I don't think they are saying that Queer struggle is the ONLY struggle, rather that as someone who is not hetrosexual, it may be advantageous to organise with like-minded individuals. For example, I'm in a class struggle group here in Christchurch (Beyond Resistance), but we have a mens group, as well as a womens core — as a specific site to explore and discuss around issues relating to patriarchy, class, and organising.
If we take seriously the claim that wider struggles must be connected to and part of class struggle, then it seems that attempts to do as much should be supported. Of course, if the group was based on pure identity politics, separatism or devoid of any class analysis then it should be open to criticism. Let's see how they go.
Solidarity,
Jared