You are a woman in a capitalist society. For good reasons, then, women are You get pissed off: about the job, about the considering whether or not “socialist bills, about your husband (or ex), about the feminism” makes sense as a political theory. kids’ school, the housework, being pretty, For socialist feminists do seem to be both not being pretty, being looked at, not being sensible and radical—at least, most of them looked at (and either way, not listened to), evidently feel a strong antipathy to some of etc. If you think about all these things and the reformist and solipsistic traps into which how they fit together and what has to be increasing numbers of women seem to be changed, and then you look around for some stumbling. words to hold all these thoughts together in To many of us more unromantic types, the abbreviated form, you almost have to come Amazon Nation, with its armies of strong- up with ‘socialist feminism.’ limbed matriarchs riding into the sunset, (Barbara Erenreich, “What is Socialist is unreal, but harmless. A more serious Feminism?”) matter is the current obsession with the Great Goddess and assorted other objects From all indications a great many women of worship, witchcraft, magic, and psychic have “come up” with socialist feminism phenomena. As a feminist concerned with as the solution to the persistent problem transforming the structure of society, I find of sexism. “Socialism” (in its astonishing this anything but harmless. variety of forms) is popular with a lot of Item One: Over fourteen hundred women people these days, because it has much to went to Boston in April, 1976 to attend a offer: concern for working people, a body of women’s spirituality conference dealing in revolutionary theory that people can point to large part with the above matters. Could not (whether or not they have read it), and some the energy invested in chanting, swapping living examples of industrialised countries the latest pagan ideas, and attending that are structured differently from the United workshops on bellydancing and menstrual States and its satellites. rituals have been put to some better and For many feminists, socialism is attractive more feminist use? because it promises to end the economic Item Two: According to reports in at least inequality of working women. Further, for one feminist newspaper, a group of witches those women who believe that an exclusively tried to levitate Susan Saxe out of jail. If feminist analysis is too narrow to encompass they honestly thought this would free Saxe, all the existing inequalities, socialism then they were totally out of touch with the promises to broaden it, while guarding realities of patriarchal oppression. If it was against the dilution of its radical perspective. intended to be a light-hearted joke, then why isn’t anyone laughing? turned inside out. It’s not surprising that working class and counter revolutionary”. All smorgasbord of tasty principles—a menu Reformism is a far greater danger to a socialist brand of feminism seems the Old Left groups are uneasy with the idea designed to appeal to practcally everyone. women’s interests than are bizarre psychic to be a source of revolutionary sanity that any women outside the “proletariat” But when “socialist” feminists serve up games. I know that “reformist” is an epithet to many women who don’t want to be are oppressed at all. The working class, of the independent women’s movement that may be used in ways that are neither witches, primitive warriors, senators, or course, is a marvellously flexible concept: as the main dish, and when they say honest nor very useful—principally to small capitalists, but who do want to in the current debates on the Left, it ranges class oppression is just one of several demonstrate one’s ideological purity, or to end sexism while creating a transformed from point-of-production workers (full stop) oppressions, no more important than any say that concrete political work of any type society. Anarchist feminism could provide a to an enormous group that takes in every other, then (as its Marxist critics say) it is no is not worth doing because it is potentially meaningful theoretical framework, but all too single person who sells her or his labor for longer socialism. co-optable. In response, some feminists many feminists have either never heard of it, wages, or who depends on someone else However, socialist feminists do not follow have argued persuasively that the right kinds or else dismiss it as the ladies’ auxiliary of who does. That’s almost all of us. (So, Papa out the implications of radical feminism of reforms can build a radical movement. male bomb-throwers. Kari, if ninety per cent of the people of the all the way. If they did, they would accept Just the same, there are reformist Socialist feminism provides an assortment United States are the vanguard, why haven’t another principle: that non-hierarchical strategies that waste the energies of women, of political homes. On the one hand, there we had the revolution yet?) structures are essential to feminist practice. that raise expectations of great change, and are the dingy, cramped quarters of Old Left The newer socialist feminists have been This, of course, is too much for any socialist that are misleading and alienating because sects such as the Revolutionary Communist trying in all manner of inventive ways to to take. But what it means is that radical they cannot deliver the goods. The best Party (formerly the Revolutionary Union), keep a core of Marxist-Leninist thought, feminism is far more compatible with one (or worst) example is electoral politics. the October League, and the International update it, and graft it to contemporary type of anarchism than it is with socialism. Some socialists (beguiled by the notion of Workers Party. Very few women find these radical feminism. The results are sometimes That type is social anarchism (also known as gradualism) fall for that one. Anarchists know habitable. On the other hand, a fair number peculiar. In July, 1975, the women of the communist anarchism), not the individualist better. You cannot liberate yourself by non- of women are moving into the sprawling, New American Movement and a number of or anarcho-capitalist varieties. liberatory means; you cannot elect a new set eclectic establishments built by newer autonomous groups held the first national This won’t come as news to feminists of politicians (no matter how sisterly) to run Left groups such as the New American conference on socialist feminism. It was not who are familiar with anarchist principles— the same old corrupt institutions—which in Movement, or by various autonomous especially heavily advertised in advance, but very few feminists are. That’s turn run you. When the National Organisation “women’s unions”. and everyone seemed to be surprised that understandable, since anarchism has veered of Women (NOW)’s Majority Caucus—the The newer socialist feminists have been so many women (over sixteen hundred, with between a bad press and none at all. If radical branch of that organization— running an energetic and reasonably more turned away) wanted to spend the July feminists were familiar with anarchism, they asks women to follow them “out of the effective campaign to recruit nonaligned 4th weekend in Yellow Springs, Ohio. would not be looking very hard at socialism mainstream, into the revolution” by means women. In contrast, the more rigid Old Left On reading the speeches given at as a means of fighting sexist oppression. that include electoral politics, they will all groups have largely rejected the very idea the conference, as well as extensive Feminists have got to be sceptical of any drown in the depths of things as they are. that lesbians, separatists, and assorted other commentary written by other women who social theory that comes with a built-in set Electoral politics is an obvious, everyday scruffy and unsuitable feminists could work attended, it is not at all clear what the of leaders and followers, no matter how kind of trap. Even a lot of non-radicals with the noble inheritors of Marx, Trotsky conference organizers thought they were “democratic” this centralized structure is have learned to avoid it. A more subtle (although the Trotskyists are unpredictable), offering in the name of “socialist feminism”. supposed to be. Women of all classes, problem is capitalism in the guise of feminist Stalin, and Mao. Many reject the idea of an The Principles of Unity that were drawn up races, and life circumstances have been on economic power. Consider, for example, autonomous women’s movement that cares prior to the conference included two items the receiving end of domination too long the Feminist Economic Network. The name at all about women’s issues. To them, it is full that have always been associated with to want to exchange one set of masters for might possibly fool you. Ostensibly it was of “bourgeois” (most damning of all Marxist radical feminism, and that in fact are typically another. We know who has power and (with a network of alternative businesses set up epithets!) women bent on “doing their own thought of as antithetical to a socialist a few isolated exceptions) it isn’t us. to erode capitalism from within by creating thing”, and it “divides the working class”, perspective. The first principle stated: “We Several contemporary anarchist feminists economic self-sufficiency for women. which is a curious assumption that workers recognize the need for and support the have pointed out the connections between That is an appealing idea. Yet, FEN’s first are dumber than everyone else. Some have existence of the autonomous women’s social anarchism and radical feminism. major project opened in Detroit in April, a hysterical antipathy to lesbians: the most movement throughout the revolutionary Lynne Farrow said “feminism practices what 1976. For an annual membership fee of notorious groups are the October League process”. The second read: “We agree that anarchism preaches”. Peggy Kornegger $100, privileged women could swim in a and the Revolutionary Communist Party, all oppression, whether based on race, believes that “feminists have been private pool, drink in a private bar, and get but they are not alone. In this policy, as in class, sex, or lesbianism, is interrelated and unconscious anarchists in both theory and discounts in a cluster of boutiques. FEN paid so many others, the anti-lesbian line follows the fights for liberation from oppression must practice for years”. And Marian Leighton its female employees $2.50 per hour to work that of the communist countries. The RCP, be simultaneous and cooperative”. The third states that “the refining destinction from there. Its director, Laura Brown, announced for example, released a position paper in the principle merely remarked that “socialist radical feminist to anarcha-feminist is largely this venture as “the beginning of the feminist early 1970s (back in its pre-party days, when feminism is a strategy for revolution”; and that of making a step in self-conscious economic revolution.” it was the plain old Revolutionary Union) the fourth and final principle called for theoretical development.” When two of the same old games— which announced that homosexuals are holding discussions “in the spirit of struggle electoral politics and hip capitalism—are “caught in the mire and muck of bourgeois and unity”. labelled “revolution”, the word has been decadence”, and that gay liberation is “anti- This is, of course, an incredible 2 SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM & FEMINISM We build autonomy good can come out of a mass movement Yet, it does little good to build alternative the principles put forth by the “unconscious The process of ever growing synthesis with a leadership elite. In short, neither a institutions if their structures mimic the anarchists” was provided in two documents For every living creature. workers’ state nor a matriarchy will end the capitalist and hierarchical models with that quickly circulated through women’s We spread oppression of everyone. The goal, then, is which we are so familiar. Many radical liberation newspapers and organisations. Spontaneity and creation not to “seize” power, as the socialists are feminists recognized this early: That’s why The first was Anselma dell’Olio’s speech We learn the joys of equality fond of urging, but to abolish power. they worked to rearrange the way women to the second Congress to Unite Women, Of relationships Contrary to popular belief, all social perceive the world and themselves (through which was held in May, 1970 in New York Without dominance anarchists are socialists. That is, they want the consciousness-raising group), and why City. The speech, entitled Divisiveness and Among sisters. to take wealth out of the hands of the few they worked to rearrange the forms of work Self-Destruction in the Women’s Movement: We destroy domination and redistribute it among all members of the relationships and interpersonal interactions A Letter of Resignation, gave dell’Olio’s In all its forms. community. And they believe that people (through the small, leaderless groups where reasons for leaving the women’s movement. need to cooperate with each other as a tasks are rotated and skills and knowledge The second document was Joreen’s This chant appeared in the radical feminist community, instead of living as isolated shared). They were attempting to do this Tyranny of Structurelessness, which first newspaper It Aint Me Babe whose masthead individuals. For anarchists, however, the in a hierarchical society that provides no appeared in 1972 in The Second Wave. carried the line “end all hierarchies”. It central issues are always power and models except ones of inequality. Surely, a Both raised issues of organizational and was not labelled an anarchist (or anarchist social hierarchy. If a state—even a state knowledge of anarchist theory and models of personal practice that were, and still are, feminist) newspaper, but the connections representing the workers—continues, it will organization would have helped. Equipped tremendously important to the women’s are striking. It exemplified much of what re-establish forms of domination, and some with this knowledge, radical feminists might movement. women’s liberation was about in the early people will no longer be free. People aren’t have avoided some of the mistakes they years of the reborn movement. And it is that free just because they are surviving, or even made—and might have been better able “I have come to announce my swan- spirit that will be lost if the socialist feminist economically comfortable. They are free only to overcome some of the difficulties they song to the women’s movement... I hybrid takes root; if goddess worship or the when they have power over their own lives. encountered in trying simultaneously to have been destroyed... I learned three lesbian nation convince women to set up Women, even more than most men, have transform themselves and society. and one-half years ago that women new forms of dominance-submission. very little power over their own lives. Gaining Take, for example, the still current debate had always been divided against one such autonomy, and insisting that everyone over “strong women” and the closely related another, were self-destructive and filled Radical Feminism & Anarchist Feminism have it, is the major goal of anarchist issue of leadership. The radical feminist with impotent rage. I never dreamed All radical feminists and all social anarchist feminists. position can be summarized this way: that I would see the day when this rage, feminists are concerned with a set of masquerading as a pseudo-egalitarian common issues: control over one’s own Power to no one, and to every one: To each 01. Women have been kept down because radicalism under the “pro-woman” body; alternatives to the nuclear family and the power over his/her own life, and no they are isolated from each other and banner, would turn into frighteningly to heterosexuality; new methods of child others. are paired off with men in relationships vicious anti-intellectual fascism of the care that will liberate parents and children; (“Lilith’s Manifesto”) of dominance and submission. Left, and used within the movement to economic self-determination; ending sex 02. Men will not liberate women; women strike down sisters singled out with all stereotyping in education, in the media, and On Practice must liberate themselves. This cannot the subtlety and justice of a kangaroo in the workplace; the abolition of repressive That is the theory. What about the practice? happen if each woman tries to liberate court of the Ku Klux Klan. I am referring, laws; an end to male authority, ownership, Again, radical feminism and anarchist herself alone. Thus, women must work of course, to the personal attack, both and control over women; providing women feminism have much more in common together on a model of mutual aid. overt and odious, to which women in the with the means to develop skills and than either does with socialist feminism. 03. “Sisterhood is powerful”, but women movement, who have painfully managed positive self-attitudes; an end to oppressive Both work to build alternative institutions, cannot be sisters if they recapitulate any degree of achievement, have been emotional relationships; and what the and both take the politics of the personal masculine patterns of dominance and subjected... If you are... an achiever you Situationists have called “the reinvention of very seriously. Socialist feminists are less submission. New organizational forms are immediately labelled a thrill-seeking everyday life”. inclined to think either is particularly vital to have to be developed. The primary form opportunist, a ruthless mercenary, out There are, then, many issues on which revolutionary practice. is the small leaderless group; the most to get her fame and fortune over the radical feminists and anarchist feminists Developing alternative forms of important behaviors are egalitarianism, dead bodies of selfless sisters who agree. But anarchist feminists are concerned organization means building self-help clinics, mutual support, and the sharing of skills have buried their abilities and sacrificed with something more. Because they are instead of fighting to get one radical on and knowledge. their ambitions for the greater glory of anarchists, they work to end all power a hospital’s board of directors; it means 04. If many women accepted this, even Feminism... If you have the misfortune relationships, all situations in which people women’s video groups and newspapers, more did not. Some were opposed from of being outspoken and articulate, you can oppress each other. Unlike some instead of commercial television and the start; others saw first hand that it are accused of being power-mad, elitist, radical feminists who are not anarchists, newspapers; living collectives, instead of was difficult to put into practice, and racist, and finally the worst epithet of all: they do not believe that power in the hands isolated nuclear families; rape crisis centers; regretfully concluded that such beautiful a MALE IDENTIFIER.” of women could possibly lead to a non- food co-ops; parent-controlled daycare idealism would never work out. coercive society. And unlike most socialist centers; free schools; printing co-ops; When Anselma dell’Olio gave this angry feminists, they do not believe that anything alternative radio groups, and so on. Ideological support for those who rejected farewell to the movement, it did two things: 4 SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM & FEMINISM For some women, it raised the question tremendous advantage. Often they knew by the control that exists. This is the image is strength pitted against strength: of how women can end unequal power more. Certainly they had long since “tyranny” of structurelessness. To overcome You do not kill an elephant with an air gun, relationships among themselves without overcome the crippling socialisation that it, groups need to set up open, explicit and you do not bring down the patriarchal destroying each other. For others, it did stressed passive, timid, docile, conformist structures accountable to the membership. state with the small group. For women quite the opposite—it provided easy behavior—behavior that taught women to Any anarchist feminist, I think, would agree who accept the argument that greater justification for all the women who had smile when they weren’t amused, to whisper with her analysis—up to this point, and no size is linked to greater effectiveness, the been dominating other women in a most when they felt like shouting, to lower their further. For what Joreen also said was that organizational options seem limited to large unsisterly way. Anyone who was involved in eyes when someone stared aggressively the so-called “leaderless, structureless liberal groups such as NOW or to socialist women’s liberation at that time knows that at them. Strong women weren’t terrified of group” was incapable of going beyond talk organizations which are mass organizations. the dell’Olio statement was twisted by some speaking in public; they weren’t afraid to to action. Not only its lack of open structure, As with so many things that seem to women in exactly that fashion: Call yourself take on “male” tasks, or to try something but also its small size and its emphasis upon make sense, the logic is faulty. “Societal assertive, or strong, or talented, and you can new. Or so it seemed. consciousness-raising (talk) were bound to oppression” is a reification, an over- re-label a good deal of ugly, insensitive, and Put a “strong” woman in the same small make it ineffective. blown, paralysing, made-up entity that is oppressive behavior. Women who presented group with a “weak” one, and she becomes large mainly in the sense that the same themselves as tragic heroines destroyed by a problem: How does she not dominate? Joreen did not say that women’s groups oppressions happen to a lot of us. But their envious or misguided (and, of course, How does she share her hard-earned skills should be hierarchically structured. In fact, oppressions, no matter how pervasive, how far less talented) “sisters” could count on and confidence with her sister? From the she called for leadership that would be predictable, almost always are done to us a sympathetic response from some other other side—how does the “weak” woman “diffuse, flexible, open, and temporary”; by some one—even if that person is acting women. learn to act in her own behalf? How can one for organizations that would build in as an agent of the state, or as a member Just the same, women who were involved even conceive of “mutual” aid in a one-way accountability, diffusion of power among of the dominant race, gender, or class. The in the movement at that time know that situation? Of “sisterhood” when the “weak” the maximum number of persons, task massive police assaults upon our assembled the kinds of things dell’Olio spoke about member does not feel equal to the “strong” rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of forces are few; even the police officer or the did happen, and they should not have one? information and resources. All good social boss or the husband who is carrying out his happened. A knowledge of anarchist These are complicated questions, with no anarchist principles of organization! But her allotted sexist or authoritarian role intersects theory is not enough, of course, to prevent simple answers. Perhaps the closest we can denigration of consciousness-raising and with us at a given point in our everyday lives. indiscriminate attacks on women. But in the come is with the anarchist slogan, “a strong her preference for large regional and national Institutionalized oppression does exist, on struggle to learn new ways of relating and people needs no leaders”. Those of us organizations were strictly part of the old a large scale, but it seldom needs to be working with each other, such knowledge who have learned to survive by dominating way of doing things, and implicitly accepted attacked (indeed, seldom can be attacked) might —just might—have prevented some of others, as well as those of us who have the continuation of hierarchical structures. by a large group. Guerilla tactics by a these destructive mistakes. learned to survive by accepting domination, Large groups are organized so that power small group—occasionally even by a single Ironically, these mistakes were motivated need to resocialize ourselves into being and decision-making are delegated to a individual—will do very nicely in retaliation. by the radical feminist aversion to strong without playing dominance- few—unless, of course, one is speaking of Another unfortunate effect of the Tyranny conventional forms of power, and the submission games, into controlling what a horizontally coordinated network of small of Structurelessness mentality (if not directly inhuman personal relationships that result happens to us without controlling others. collectives, which she did not mention. How of the article) was that it fed people’s from one set of persons having power over This can’t be done by electing the right does a group such as NOW, with its sixty stereotypes of anarchists. (Of course, others. When radical feminists and anarchist people to office or by following the correct thousand members in 1975, rotate tasks, people don’t usually swallow something feminists speak of abolishing power, they party line; nor can it be done by sitting and share skills, and ensure that all information unless they’re hungry.) Social anarchists mean to get rid of all institutions, all forms reflecting on our sins. We rebuild ourselves and resources are available to everyone? aren’t opposed to structure: They aren’t of socialisation, all the ways in which people and our world through activity, through It can’t, of course. Such groups have a even against leadership, provided that coerce each other—and acquiesce to being partial successes, and failure, and more president, and a board of directors, and a it carries no reward or privilege, and is coerced. partial successes. And all the while we grow national office, and a membership—some temporary and specific to a particular task. A major problem arose in defining stronger and more self-reliant. of whom are in local chapters, and some However, anarchists, who want to abolish the nature of coercion in the women’s If Anselma dell’Olio criticised the personal of whom are isolated members. Few such a hierarchical structure, are almost always movement. The hostility towards the practice of radical feminists, Joreen raised groups have very much direct democracy, stereotyped as wanting no structure at all. “strong” woman arose because she was some hard questions about organisational and few teach their members new ways of Unfortunately, the picture of a gaggle of someone who could at least potentially structure. The Tyranny of Structurelessness working and relating to one another. disorganized, chaotic anarchist women, coerce women who were less articulate, pointed out that there is no such thing as a The unfortunate effect of The Tyranny drifting without direction, caught on. For less self-confident, less assertive than she. “structureless” group, and people who claim of Structurelessness was that it linked example, in 1976 Quest reprinted an edited Coercion is usually far more subtle than there is are fooling themselves. All groups together large organization, formal structure, transcript of an interview which Charlott physical force or economic sanction. One have a structure; the difference is whether and successful direct action in a way that Bunch and Beverly Fisher had given the person can coerce another without taking or not the structure is explicit. If it is implicit, seemed to make sense to a lot of people. Feminist Radio Network in 1972. In one away their job, or striking them, or throwing hidden elites are certain to exist and to Many women felt that in order to fight way, the most interesting thing about the them in jail. control the group—and everyone, both the societal oppression a large organization interview was that the Quest editors felt Strong women started out with a leaders and the led, will deny or be confused was essential, and the larger the better. The the issues were still so timely in 1976 (e.g. 6 SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM & FEMINISM “We see the same trashing of leaders and The personal is the political. product of the commodity economy”. (Point- housewife (reproducing the next generation glorification of structurelessness that existed (Carol Hanisch) Blank!, “The Changing of the Guard”) This of workers), as a clerical worker, as a student five years ago.”). But what Bunch had to say has inevitably alienated people from their or a middle-level professional employed by at that time was also extremely interesting: Anarchists are used to hearing that they lives, not just from their labor; to consume the state (and therefore as part of the “new According to her, the emphasis on solving lack a theory that would help in building a social relationships makes one a passive working class”). You do not have to be part problems of structure and leadership was new society. At best, their detractors say spectator in one’s life. The spectacle, of the Third World, or a lesbian, or elderly, or “a very strong anarchist desire. It was a patronizingly, anarchism tells us what not to then, is the culture that springs from the a welfare recipient. All of these women are good desire, but it was an unrealistic one”. do. Don’t permit bureaucracy or hierarchical commodity economy—the stage is set, the objects in the commodity economy; all are Anarchists, who are used to being called authority; don’t let a vanguard party make action unfolds, we applaud when we think passive viewers of the spectacle. Obviously, “unrealistic”, will note that the unreality decisions; don’t tread on me. Don’t tread we are happy, we yawn when we think we women in some situations are far worse off of it all apparently lay in the problems on anyone. According to this perspective, are bored, but we cannot leave the show, than are others. But, at the same time, none which the women’s movement was having anarchism is not a theory at all. It is a set of because there is no world outside the are free in every area of their lives. in organizing itself—problems of hidden cautionary practices, the voices of libertarian theater for us to go to. leadership, of having “leaders” imposed conscience—always idealistic, sometimes a In recent times, however, the societal stage Women & the Commodity Economy by the media, of difficulty in reaching out bit truculent, occasionally anachronistic, but has begun to crumble, and so the possibillity Women have a dual relationship to the to interested but uncommitted women, a necessary reminder. exists of constructing another world outside commodity economy—they are both of over representation of middle class There is more than a kernel of truth to this the theater—this time, a real world, one consumers and consumed. As housewives, women with lots of time on their hands, of objection. Just the same, there are varieties in which each of us directly participates they are consumers of household goods the amorphousness of the movement, of of anarchist thought that can provide a as subject, not as object. The situationist purchased with money not their own, the scarcity of specific task groups which theoretical framework for analysis of the phrase for this possibility is “the reinvention because not “earned” by them. This may women could join, of hostility towards world and action to change it. For radical of everyday life”. give them a certain amount of purchasing women who tried to show leadership or feminists who want to take that “step in How is daily life to be reinvested? By power, but very little power over any aspect initiative. A heavy indictment! Yet, these self-conscious theoretical development”, creating situations that disrupt what seems of their lives. As young, single heterosexuals, very real problems were not caused by perhaps the greatest potential lies in to be the natural order of things—situations women are purchasers of goods designed anarchism, nor will they be cured by doses Situationism. that jolt people out of customary ways of to make them bring a high price on the of of vanguardism or reformism. And by The value of Situationism for an anarchist thinking and behaving. Only then will they marriage market. As anything else—lesbians, labelling these organizational difficulties feminist analysis is that it combines a be able to act, to destroy the manufactured or elderly single, or self-sufficient women “anarchist” feminists ignore a rich anarchist socialist awareness of the primacy of spectacle and the commodity economy— with “careers”, women’s relationship to the tradition while at the same time proposing capitalist oppression with an anarchist that is, capitalism in all its forms. Only then marketplace as consumers is not so sharply solutions that are—although they apparently emphasis upon transforming the whole will they be able to create free and un- defined. They are expected to buy (and the don’t know it—anarchist. Bunch and Fisher of public and private life. The point about alienated lives. more affluent they are, the more they are laid out a model of leadership in which capitalist oppression is important: All too The congruence of this activist, social expected to buy), but for some categories of everyone participates in making decisions; often anarchists seem to be unaware that anarchist theory with radical feminist theory women, buying is not defined primarily to fill and leadership is specific to a particular this economic system exploits most people. is striking. The concepts of commodity out some aspect of a woman’s role. situation and is time-limited. Fisher criticized But all too often socialist—especially and spectacle are especially applicable to So what else is new? Isn’t the idea of NOW for “hierarchical leadership that is not Marxists—are blind to the fact that people the lives of women. In fact, many radical woman-as-passive-consumer, manipulated responsible to the vast membership”, and are oppressed in every aspect of life: work, feminists have described these in detail, by the media, patronized by slick Madison Bunch stated, “leadership is people taking what passes for leisure, culture, personal without placing them in the Situationist Avenue men, an overdone movement cliche? the initiative, carrying things through, having relationships—all of it. And only anarchists framework. To do so broadens the analysis, Well, yes—and no. A Situationist analysis the ideas and imagination to get something insist that people must transform the by showing women’s situation as an ties consumption of economic goods to started, and exhibiting particular skills conditions of their lives themselves—it organic part of the societv as a whole, but consumption of ideological goods, and then in different areas”. How do they suggest cannot be done for them. Not by the party, at the same time without playing socialist tells us to create situations (guerrilla actions we prevent the silencing of these women not by the union, not by “organizers”, not by reductionist games. Women’s oppression on many levels) that will break that pattern of under false notions of egalitarianism? “The anyone else. is part of the over-all oppression of people socialised acceptance of the world as it is. only way women will stop putting down Two basic Situationist concepts are by a capitalist economy, but it is not less No guilt-tripping; no criticizing women who women who are strong is if they are strong “commodity” and “spectacle”. Capitalism than the oppression of others. Nor—from have “bought” the consumer perspective. themselves”. Or, as I said earlier, a strong has made all of social relations commodity a Situationist perspective—do you have For they have indeed bought it: It has been people needs no leaders. Right on! relations: The market rules all. People to be a particular variety of woman to be sold to them as a way of survival from the are not only producers and consumers in oppressed; you do not have to be part of earliest moments of life. Buy this: It will Situationism and Anarchist Feminism the narrow economic sense, but the very the proletariat, either literally, as an industrial make you beautiful and lovable. Buy this: To transform the world and to change the structure of their daily lives is based on worker, or metaphorically, as someone who It will keep your family in good health. Feel structure of life are one and the same thing. commodity relations. Society “is consumed is not independently wealthy. You do not depressed? Treat yourself to an afternoon at (Strasbourg Situationists) as a whole—the ensemble of social have to wait breathlessly for socialist feminist the beauty parior or to a new dress. relationships and structures is the central manifestoes to tell you that you qualify—as a Guilt leads to inaction. Only action, to re- 8 SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM & FEMINISM invent the everyday and make it something find in the paid labour force, they are also opposite of what is expected. At the same solutions to problems of sexist oppression else, will change social relations. describing woman as commodity. Women time these acts are cliches of rebellion, and cover a wide range: Stay single; live are consumed by men who treat them as thus are almost prescribed safety valves that communally (with both men and women, The Gift sex objects; they are consumed by their don’t alter the theater of our lives. What is a or with women only). Don’t have children; Thinking she was the gift children (whom they have produced!) when rebellious woman supposed to do? We can don’t have male children; have any kind they began to package it early. they buy the role of the Supermother; they all name the behaviors—they appear in every of children you want, but get parent and they waxed its smile are consumed by authoritarian husbands newspaper, on prime time television, on the worker-controlled child care. Get a job; get they lowered its eyes who expect them to be submissive servants; best-seller list, in popular magazines—and, a better job; push for affirmative action. they tuned its ears to the telephone and they are consumed by bosses who of course, in everyday life. In a setting that Be an informed consumer; file a lawsuit; they curled its hair bring them in and out of the labor force values perfectionist housekeeping, she can learn karate; take assertiveness training. they straightened its teeth and who extract a maximum of labor for be a slob; in a subculture that values large Develop the lesbian within you. Develop they taught it to bury its wishbone a minimum of pay. They are consumed by families, she can refuse to have children. your proletarian identity. All of these make they poured honey down its throat medical researchers who try out new and Other predictable insurgencies? She can sense in particular situations, for particular they made it say yes yes and yes unsafe contraceptives on them. They are defy the sexual double standard for married women. But all of them are partial solutions they sat on its thumbs consumed by men who buy their bodies on women by having an affair (or several); to much broader problems, and none of That box has my name on it, the street. They are consumed by church she can drink; or use what is termed them necessarily require seeing the world in said the man. It’s for me. and state, who expect them to produce the “locker room” language; or have a nervous a qualitatively different way. And they were not surprised. next generation for the glory of god and breakdown; or—if she is an adolescent—she So, we move from the particular to more While they blew kisses and winked country; they are consumed by political and can “act out” (a revealing phrase!) by running general solutions. Destroy capitalism. End he took it home. He put it on a table social organizations that expect them to away from home and having sex with a lot patriarchy. Smash heterosexism. All are where his friends could examine it “volunteer” their time and energy. The have of men. obviously essential tasks in the building of a saying dance saying faster. little sense of self , because their selfhood Any of these things may make an new and truly human world. Marxists, other He plunged its tunnel has been sold to others. individual woman’s life more tolerable (often, socialists, social anarchists, feminists—all he burned his name deeper. they make it less so); and all of them are would agree. But what the socialist, and Later he put it on a platform Women and the Spectacle guaranteed to make conservatives rant even some feminists, leave out is this: We under the Klieg lights It is difficult to consume people who put up that society is crumbling. But these kinds must smash all forms of domination. That’s saying push saying harder a fight, who resist the cannibalizing of their of scripted insurrections haven’t made it not just a slogan, and it is the hardest task saying just what I wanted bodies, their minds, their daily lives. A few crumble yet, and, by themselves, they aren’t of all. It means that we have to see through you’ve given me a son. people manage to resist, but most don’t likely to. Anything less than a direct attack the spectacle, destroy the stage sets, know (Carol Oles, “The Gift”) resist effectively, because they can’t. It is upon all the conditions of our lives is not that there are other ways of doing things. It hard to locate our tormentor, because it is so enough. means that we have to do more than react Women are not only consumers in the pervasive, so familiar. We have known it all When women talk about changing in programmed rebellions—we must act. commodity economy; they are consumed our lives. It is our culture. destructive sex role socialisation of females, And our actions will be collectively taken, as commodities. This is what Oles’ poem Situationists characterize our culture as they pick one of three possible solutions: while each person acts autonomously. Does is about, and it is what Tax has labelled a spectacle. The spectacle treats us all that seem contradictory? It isn’t—but it will “female schizophrenia”. Tax constructs as passive spectators of what we are told 01. Girls should be socialised more or be very difficult to do. The individual cannot an inner monologue for the housewife- are our lives. And the culture-as-spectacle less like boys to be independent, change anything very much; for that reason, as-commodity: “I am nothing when I am covers everything: We are born into it, competitive, aggressive, and so forth. In we have to work together. But that work by myself. In myself, I am nothing. I only socialised by it, go to school in it, work short, it is a man’s world, so a woman must be without leaders as we know them, know that I exist because I am needed by and relax and relate to other people in it. who wants to fit in has to be “one of the and without delegating any control aver what someone who is real, my husband, and by Even when we rebel against it, the rebellion boys”. we do and what we want to build. my children”. is often defined by the spectacle. Would 02. We should glorify the female role, Can the socialists do that? Or the When feminists describe socialisation into anyone care to estimate the number of and realise that what we have called matriarchs? Or the spirituality-trippers? You the female sex role, when they point out the sensitive, alienated adolescent males who weakness is really strength. We know the answer to that. Work with them traits female children are taught (emotional a generation ago modelled their behavior should be proud that we are maternal, when it makes sense to do so, but give up dependence, childishness, timidity, concern on James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause? nurturant, sensitive, emotional, and so nothing. Concede nothing to them, or to with being beautiful, docility, passivity, and I’m talking about a movie, whose capitalist on. anyone else. so on), they are talking about the careful producers and whose star made a great deal 03. The only healthy person is an production of a commodity—although it isn’t of money from this Spectacular. androgynous person: We must The past leads to us if we force it to. usually called that. When they describe the Rebellious acts, then tend to be acts of eradicate the artificial division of Otherwise it contains us oppresiveness of sexual objectification, or opposition to the spectacle, but seldom humanity into “masculine” and in its asylum with no gates. of living in the nuclear family, or of being a are so different that they transcend the “feminine”, and help both sexes We make history or it Supermother, or of working in the kinds of spectacle. Women have a set of behaviors become a mix of the best traits of each. makes us. low-level, underpaid jobs that most women that show dissatisfaction by being the (Marge Piercy, “Contribution to Our Museum”) Within these three models, personal 10 SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM & FEMINISM http://LAFF-experiment.org

http://ImagineNoBorders.org