Our movement needs democracy!
The FEM conferences (see www.femconferences.org.uk) have made a name of themselves as the feminist conferences to go to, particularly within the mainstream of feminism and with the media and public. Certainly they have the numbers, with the latest — FEM08 — pulling a crowd of about 400 people, in fact it was supposedly oversubscribed. However if you look at the way they are run and at the list of topics for any one of the conferences most women would be forced to say there is very little for them there.
The FEM conferences don’t hide the fact that their brand of feminism is firmly rooted in bourgeois ideals, with sessions such as “sexism and the city” concentrating the fight for liberation on achieving equal pay for high flying city workers — made worse by their patronising nod to the Justice for Cleaners campaign.
At FEM08 there was a prevailing feeling of meek contentedness — “we’re all very good feminists for coming to these events, lets all give ourselves a pat on the back”. Despite the many things to criticise about their approach to feminism (which would make a very long article) the main problem I wish to highlight about the FEM conferences was the absolutely stifling political atmosphere the event took place in; it was like a vacuum.
Not only was there no time for debate (being a one day conference, and running late, this I would slightly understand) it was positively discouraged. Sessions were conducted to the strict method of listen to a speaker, have other speakers comment, approximately two or three questions from the floor, a bit of a self congratulating summation and, well, that would be it. No debate, no discussion, no plans for action or link-ins to existing campaigns.
Several Workers’ Liberty women went as part of Education Not for Sale Women (as the conference is held at Sheffield University student union and is aimed predominantly at students and young “activists”). We had bulletins dealing with some specific issues, such as sex work, equal pay and political representation. We also devoted a section to the type of women’s movement we need, about open and democratic structures, an orientation to the labour movement and working women, and the importance of direct action.
Predictably they did not go down well with the organising group, who accused us of undermining the work the volunteers do for the FEM conferences and going deliberately to spread “anti-FEM08” literature. This highlights perfectly the way FEM08 deal with any view differing to theirs. Despite requests for a stall neither Feminist Fightback nor ENS Women were recognised nor allowed room at the event.
Although I can understand that FEM08 wished to accommodate many speakers and organisations, this does not excuse the lack of open debate. Apparently debate is not needed when you have such important speakers as Germaine Greer (who apparently made very transphobic comments... again) or Julie Bindle (who thinks prostitution will miraculously disappear overnight if we criminalise men for buying sex).
We have criticised the organisation and structure of the FEM conferences before, and I think if anything it has got worse. They are organised by a small set of people with a slightly larger section of volunteers. Appeals are put out on the FEMSOC website and within local Fawcett and FEMSOC groups for people to get involved and help. However at no point are other feminist groups approached, there are no open meetings.
There was supposedly an organising committee in Sheffield, and the student union women’s committee was at one time invited to get involved. However, after that I (as a member of that women’s committee) heard nothing more, although several members did get involved.
The lack of open structures and open discussion results in the atmosphere at the conferences, whereby discussion is dictated by the speakers invited and the propaganda distributed.
The movement for women’s liberation as much now as it has done throughout the decades should think carefully about where it orientates and how it operates. There is still the need to fight, yes, but not because some rich Tory women in the city face the 4% pay gap. Our women’s movement needs to be an open space in which politics can be discussed and ideas developed, not stifled and controlled by the well recognised academic feminists such as the speakers invited to FEM08 this year.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Our movement - whose are you talking about
Whilst not denying that many of the comments made in this article are valid (about lack or democratically accountable organising etc.) the real problem is the one that the writer herself is part of. The idea that only those who are university educated and go to and are interested in conferences like this are 'valid' feminists. There are many hundreds of feminists actively working with other women on issues that are crucial to their own lives and to other women with a shared sexual, racial, class, ability identity. The difference is they are getting on with it, not holding conferences which are in effect little more than political beauty contests or future employment opportunities (in the mainstream, ie will look good on a CV). And the last thing they want is over educated young white women coming along and telling them how to organise or who to affiliate to.
The article is no more than say the SWP having a squabble with the IMG. It's all about women who think they themselves are more important than the issues and want to be identified as the 'leaders'. Feminism as currently practised by 3rd Wave Feminists / student politics and reflected in the conference criticised, the forthcoming London Fem Conference and this article itself are just the dependents of male patronage who have been corraled into shallow and isolationist positions. Their value to the male left is actually to recruit gullible young women into joining male left parties whether the main stream 'left' ie Labour or more radical 'left' eg workers liberty. Most of these I'm more feminist than you arguments are about becoming the prime recipient of male approval, very little to do with enabling or empowering women in their homes, community, workplace or market.
The vast majority of what is now 'celebrated' as feminism is in fact the product of privitisation of women's services through funding, ideas through women's studies, campaigns through media filtering and cooption by male run political parties. And in the same way as Labour party members passively allowed their 'leaders' to take them up Thatcher's path, current feminists happily allow the priviteers to pen them into a smaller and smaller area of issues with the result that they then turn in on each other. Just how far 3rd Wave Feminism has drifted from the days of collectively organised Women's Liberation is the truly bizarre idea that a media created 'feminist' such as Germaine Greer should even have been invited let alone listened to! All she did was cobble together an airport style bestseller for her publishers which was then hyped by the male media because of its emphasis on 'sexual freedom'. (Ignorance is an explanation not an excuse.)
The other element, which many others have pointed out, is that the internet far from making it easier for women to interact and work together has in fact allowed women to group together in rival girl gangs, and occassionally their 'owners' bus them out too approved demonstrations, more to gain brownie points for themselves with their male patrons, than for the issue itself.
Should I live long enough I confidently expect many of the main protagonists of these numerically small groups to sooner or later being 'names' in main stream politics. Think Harriet Harman, think Angie Weir (Angela Mason). The new memsahibs of the new colonialism.
Which post do you see yourself in Gemma?!
Presumptions?
Hi
Firstly just wanted to say I'm not sure where you get the idea that I feel only women that go to university are in some weird perverse way 'valid feminists'. I'm very lucky to be able to go to university but that does not mean I instantly think everyone else is unworthy and does not know as much as me. In fact when it comes to socialist feminist ideas and politics women currently working know a lot more than me. It also begs the question about whether by assumption all uni students are not working class or will not end up working but thats a different matter.
I struggle to see where you get that idea that all conferences are 'political beauty contests' and not about actively sharing ideas and experiences to learn more about and develop our movement. Obviously events such as FEM08 do slip into that, being aimed mainly at students or recent middle class graduates. Which is what I tried to demonstrate in this article.
Workers liberty has an autonomously organised womens' section which is in no way some sort of gulliable patronage to male left group as you suggest. We are involved in a campaign called Feminist Fightback which orientates to working womens struggles. It has its problems, no it is not entirely comprised of working women - but in this state of low class struggle and awareness expecting a mass working womens movement to exist is naive. Yet we propaganside around those ideas and have done important work around things such as the tube cleaners strike, fremantle workers strike, raising demands around childcare, flexible working, access to health care (which links into stopping and reversing privatisation of services).
You seem to think the sort of womens movements you see are partonising (indeed some of them are sickeningly so) and revolve around 'over-educated' (on a side, how on earth can someone be over educated!?) middle class white women. Not only is this not what I see in the womens movements I'm involved in but more than that you are patronising of these movements defining them automatically as appendages of 'male left groups', particularly by assuming womens movements use the internet to form into 'rival girl gangs'.