Breaking down domination

and finding our voices

D angerous Conversations is a project born out of the
struggle to end systems of domination. Our involvement in
movements described as anarchist, activist, horizontalist, and
so on has been at times inspiring and at other times
disillusioning and frustrating. This zine is not aimed at
Anarchists or Activists but at anyone who struggles against the
many forms of domination that blight our lives: ableism,
ageism, authority, capitalism, civilisation, caste and class
systems, heteronormativity, islamaphobia, male privilege,
speciesism, transphobia, white supremacy (and others that are
still unrecognised).

D angerous Conversations is intended as an intervention in

business as usual. We hoped to collect texts and
viewpoints that challenge the status quo in a way that, rather
than (or perhaps as well as) provoking hostility, provoke
constructive responses and discussion. We hope that, as much
as possible, the zine becomes a place to converse and to
deepen affinity. By showing solidarity with others who also see
the struggle as their own struggle, even when we differ on the
details, we can become stronger as a movement. Ours is a
strength that comes through diversity and empathy for different
viewpoints rather than the imposition of dogma and distrust.

A s well as not claiming to have the answers, we are aware

of the shortcomings of this project. We don’t claim to be
trying to represent all of the different struggles against
privilege and hierarchy that exist. We do not seek to have
ownership of this project and know that it is necessary for
everyone that struggles to be heard and have a place. We
hope that Dangerous Conversations can be a space where
marginalised perspectives can get the prominence they
deserve and we hope to widen participation in the editorial
collective.
T his first issue contains original material inspired by our
callout, but we also wanted to republish articles that we
found valuable for getting us to think about these issues in the
first place and thought were worth sharing (although obviously
we couldn’t include everything).

T hese conversations are dangerous to oppressors because

they threaten their privilege. They sometimes seem
dangerous to us too because they threaten our own privilege.
Because of this, they are important conversations to have.
Nottingham, UK, April 2011
 No Pretence
In June 2009 a group of anarcha-feminists took the stage at
the UK Anarchist Conference to protest about sexist oppression
within the movement. They projected a film and read out a
statement based on the themes of the conference, which we
have printed in sections throughout this zine.
MOVEMENT or why we aren’t one
No matter how much we pockets of revolutionary
aspire to be ‘self critical’ resistance missing from our
there is a clear lack of political pamphlets and
theorising and concrete ‘independent’ media. The
action around sexism, feminism of Comandanta
homophobia and racism in Yolanda, of bell hooks, of
the anarchist movement. We Anzaldua, of Mbuya Nehanda,
do not feel that the content of Angela Davis, of Rote Zora,
and structure of the of Mujeres Libres…
conference deal with
gender and we’re tired of
asking for space – we’re
taking it ourselves.
You want to talk about
history? Let’s stop pretending
that feminism is a short blip
in the history of political
struggles. The feminism you
know may be the one that
has been dominated by white
middle-class liberal politics –
NOT the struggles and
Angela Davis
 Going beyond activism
MG
I have been frustrated with hadn’t been for good friends
the culture and lifestyle who shared their
associated with activism for experiences of exclusion
a long time. In the UK, and alienation I might never
where I live, a particular, have noticed the
narrow section of the fundamental flaws of what I
community seems to have was involved in. I felt a
taken ownership of the term responsibility to write about
“activist” and used it to the new understanding that
label and justify its own these shared experiences
activities. It was my had given me, as a way of
increasingly negative showing solidarity with the
perception of the anarchist excluded and to raise
activist scene that I was a awareness about the power
part of that led me to write dynamics that I felt were
“Why I Hate Activism”*, often made invisible.
criticising the white, middle Because I felt passionately
class, patriarchal values that about what I was writing, I
still ruled the roost in the was angry and antagonistic
“alternative” subculture. and was not always
The article was published on receptive to the often
the Ceasefire magazine site helpful comments others
but was subsequently were making about the
reposted on various other piece. Having stepped back
activist sites and blogs. and reflected more on the
conversations that began,
I should say from the start
I’d like to try to engage in
that I have been deeply
them more constructively
involved in activism for
than before.
many years and have to take
responsibility for my own Initial responses to the
complicity in its failings. If it article were quite polarised

*http://tinyurl.com/3gwzujc
with some readers seeing aspects preconceptions and
of their own experiences touched preoccupations of this elite group.
on whilst others felt that my Attempts to challenge privilege
article was inappropriate. Given are usually treated as subordinate
the many criticisms, I felt the to saving the planet/helping
need to clear up misconceptions, refugees/attacking capital, etc
take heed of others’ personal and are not taken too seriously.
experiences and try to make some
positive suggestions about what "the activist scene reproduces
we can do. many of the hierarchies of
Firstly, I want to make clear what I visibility and privilege present
think is the problem and why it in mainstream society"
definitely should be viewed as a
Fighting the state and capitalism
problem by anyone who is against
are given priority over struggling
hierarchical systems. I think that
against hierarchies which white,
the activist scene reproduces
middle class men benefit from.
many of the hierarchies of
When privilege is challenged
visibility and privilege present in
more effectively, a smokescreen of
mainstream society and that this
denial goes up, obscuring the real
is not being challenged. In
issues until the threat has passed.
particular, white British cultural
Take, for instance, the
norms, especially those of the
anarchafeminist intervention at
middle classes, are privileged
the UK Anarchist Movement
within the scene. This has given
Conference which was
particular privileged people the
subsequently ridiculed by some
feeling of ownership over the
activist men as “retrograde”
term activism, which has come to
(because the women involved
describe a movement in which
masked their faces), “pathetic”
they are guaranteed a place. It
and “manipulative”. The
subsequently marginalises those
privileged activists lined up to
activists whose activities and
belittle the action with no
identities do not fit the cultural
apparent awareness of how they
norm.
were being dominating,
Many of the events and campaigns disempowering and misogynist.
that come from the self-defining The attitude amongst many of
activist community reflect the these self-appointed leaders
seems to be one of outrage that This conclusion was echoed by
women, people of colour, queers Elena, who recalled her
and disabled people should experiences of leftist activism at
challenge their authority. university as being “a very macho
environment in which I felt very
Faced with this cultural
uncomfortable. Unfortunately it
hegemony, many of those who
can only take a few bad
don’t feel that they fit in rapidly
experiences when someone is first
become disillusioned with the
dipping their toe in the water to
scene and move on to
put a curious progressive person
environments where their race,
off for life.” Switch commented
class, sexuality and gender aren’t
that the “mainstream” activist
reasons for
movement
their exclusion "I would like to move towards a
“makes it look like
or exploitation. place where we can sit down there is one
The result is
together... but that isn't ‘movement,’
described by
Kareem, who possible at the moment" which
perpetuates the
commented on the original article:
invisibility of parallel movements
Speaking simply from experience, it is in other (non-white, non-punk,
not easy for someone with a non-student) subcultures…, but
background in the Global South, there are of course much purer
especially if they also come from a revolutionary elements in all sorts
working class (or even lower middle of places).”
class) background, to adjust to a
But whilst these people’s
lifestyle and become accepted within
the activist communities referred to in experiences seemed to validate
my observations, there were many
the piece. This is not to valorise either
criticisms of what I had written.
black and brown people, or people
For example, Sara claimed that:
from a non-elite class background,
“[t]he polemic has its uses sure,
except to say that if such people feel
but how useful is it against
automatically alienated from activist
potential allies; how productive is
groups – and I think many do – it is
it?” She continued:
difficult to think of how such groups
will bring about lasting, progressive Representational polemic… disarms
social change. and is disempowering; it speaks over,
speaks at as opposed to engaging activists don’t
with and opening up a conversation, realise there is a
a dialogue in which all parties are problem. I think
vulnerable and put themselves on there’s an urgent
the line, and learn to trust each need to
other to be able to begin to deal with communicate that
the difficult complicities and there are very
contradictions in many of our serious problems
political actions and relationships in how we
amongst ourselves and the wider relate to
community. one
I think that this is certainly true another.
of the ways in which I and other Until
university-educated people privileges
learn to engage with these are
problems. By adopting a meticulously
particular form and style of unpicked, I think it’s
writing to express our unwise to expect genuine
discontent we perpetuate an dialogue (as opposed to
exclusionary mode of power games) to emerge.
communication. However, given Other commenters seemed
that the piece was aimed at to disagree that the
precisely the kind of people who cultural majority should
communicate in this way, I have to change. Andy
would argue that it was not argued that:
excluding its targets from
If people feel existing activism
engaging in conversation.
does not resonate with their
I would like to move towards a particular ethnic or class culture,
place where we can sit down maybe instead of complaining
together, in mutual trust, to about others living their own way
discuss as equals. But given the (which after all, isn’t doing you
hierarchies that exist within the any harm and very often is also
activist community this isn’t socially taboo or dissident), these
possible at the moment. There people should form their own
isn’t the willingness to engage affinity-groups with people who
with these issues because many share their culture, and network
these affinity-groups into the network. dynamics at play, where the
These sentiments, to me, betray a majority’s cultural practices are
lack of understanding of the assumed to be the norm.
problems faced by those without "When we experience
access to the existing activist
resistance to the ideas that we
scene. The people Andy seemed to
have in mind could (and often do) find, we should try to work out
form groups with people who whether we have vested
share their culture (when they interests in maintaining
can, and often they can’t which is hierarchies."
why they turn to the wider
activist community in the first Whilst I want to continue to
place), but then they face engage in conversation with other
invisibility or reduced visibility in activists and those who would be
the wider activist scene. They may activists about the precise nature
be assumed to be focussed on of the problems, I also feel like I
identity politics or accused of should offer some suggestions
being separatist, even though about how we might start
they may feel that they should be remedying the situation. For me,
included in wider activist circles. the main problems are the power
The decision to form culturally differentials that exist within
specific groups often results in wider society and that inevitably
reduced trust from the wider contaminate any activist
network, as the in-group, groupings we create. I think that
paradoxically, feels excluded by we need to work to identify and
the autonomy of those with eliminate male privilege, white
different cultural values. supremacy, heteronormativity
Certainly, a minority group that and other hierarchical modes of
chooses to organise in this way thinking not just in the obvious
may feel more autonomy, but this baddies (the police, the fascists,
may come at the expense of etc.) but in ourselves. We need to
increased separation. To blame make effort to educate ourselves
the excludeds’ own cultural through the experiences of those
practices for their separation who have suffered from and have
demonstrates a lack of been complicit in the kinds of
appreciation of the power abuses we seek to eliminate. There
is a wealth of information available our vulnerabilities with one
in zines, books and on the internet another, as those afraid of being
that is relevant to the issues I am dominated and those afraid of
talking about. We need to make losing our privilege. Once people
ourselves, our friends and recognise the divides that exist and
accomplices aware of these make genuine efforts to move
viewpoints. When we experience beyond them, trust becomes a
resistance to the ideas that we find, possibility.
we should interrogate that
I am excited at the prospect of
resistance and try to work out reaching this stage in the
whether we have vested interests communities I am involved with
in maintaining hierarchies. I have although, of course, it is a daunting
found groups such as pro-feminist mountain to climb, personally and
men’s groups invaluable for collectively. I think that, by
creating spaces conducive to incorporating a lifelong struggle
collective unpicking of our against our own conditioned value
complicity in perpetuating systems into our actions, we can
hierarchies. Many people write off move towards more enriching and
such ventures as hand-wringing sustainable relationships. It is in
guilt-fests but I have found them to everybody’s interests that we work
be a necessary step in taking to accomplish this.
collective responsibility to change
the values that exist in activist
spaces.
I think that once tribal groups (e.g.
men, white people, straight people)
have made an effort to empathise
with the experiences of others and
people are taking responsibility as
individuals and as part of wider
collectives to combat hierarchy
formation and perpetuation,
dialogue can begin in earnest. Once
there is a respect for others’ views
and perspectives we can begin a
conversation. We can start to share
Cissexism: the belief that transsexual genders are less valid than
cissexual genders.
Cissexual: "[…] people who are not transsexual and who have only
ever experienced their subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned"
(Julia Serano)
Cissexual privilege: Experienced by cissexuals as a result of having
their fe/maleness deemed authentic, natural and unquestionable by society
at large. It allows cissexuals to take their sex embodiment for granted in
ways that transsexuals cannot.
Entitlement: a belief that one is deserving of/entitled to certain
privileges
Heteronormativity: the cultural bias in favour of opposite-sex relationships
of a sexual nature, and against same-sex relationships of a sexual nature.
Because the former are viewed as normal and the latter are not, lesbian
and gay relationships are subject to a heteronormative bias.
Heterosexism: a form of discrimination that favours heterosexuals over
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Most legal systems are profoundly
heterosexist, offering visitation rights, tax benefits, and other protections to
opposite-sex couples that are not available to same-sex couples.
Heterosexism is distinct from homophobia, though homophobia is in all
likelihood the driving force behind heterosexism.
Intersectionality: a concept that enables us to recognize the fact that
perceived group membership can make people vulnerable to various forms
of bias, yet because we are simultaneously members of many groups, our
complex identities can shape the specific way we each experience that
bias. e.g. women of different races can experience sexism differently. An
intersectional approach goes beyond conventional analysis in order to
focus our attention on injuries that we otherwise might not recognize.
African American Policy Forum
Kyriarchy: a neologism coined by Elisabeth
Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words
for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate”
(archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of
patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures
of domination…Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex
pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of
superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.
Glossary, Wisdom Ways, Orbis Books New York 2001
Oppression: the constellation of structural economic, political,
and psycho-social relations that systematically confine or reduce the life-
choices of a social group, often through presenting members of the
oppressed social group with a set of “double binds”: that is, choices
between equally problematic outcomes. [See also privilege]
http://www.kickaction.ca/node/1499
Oppression Olympics: competing for the position of most oppressed
(a group event) e.g. "women face far more prejudice than black people."
Doesn't really get anyone from any group very far.
Patriarchy: Literally means the rule of the father and is
generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as
asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. The
theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged because, for
instance, black men do not have control over white wo/men and some
women (slave/mistresses) have power over subaltern women and men
(slaves).

Privilege:
Glossary, Wisdom Ways, Orbis Books New York 2001
unearned advantage conferred systematically to
members of a social group, in virtue of their group-membership.
http://www.kickaction.ca/node/1499
Feminist Power

Author: Shotgun Seamstress

Text is from:
shotgunseamstress.blogspot.com/2010/08/feminist-
power.html [See link for complete version of this piece]

Everyone’s different, so not everyone’s going to

agree about whether feminism is still relevant or
necessary. I mean, if you’re a middle class, college
educated white lady with a sensitive white guy
boyfriend and you feel liberated cuz you have a
hyphenated last name, maybe you feel like the coast
is clear and that women are no longer oppressed
and we don’t need feminism anymore. I have to
explain why I think that the idea that feminism is
irrelevant is bullshit.
Even though I’m black and gay, I don’t really identify
as oppressed because I live in the U.S. and I can
live where I want and travel around and I have a
roof over my head and I’ve had a lucky life with
relatively minor things to complain about. But I don’t
feel like we still need feminism because I specifically
believe that all women are oppressed relative to me.
I believe that feminism is still relevant because it speaks to the
necessity to generally redefine power in our society and globally.
When we were starting the Portland chapter of Anarchist People of
Color in 2003, I remember sitting in the small group that comprised
us, talking about how we wanted to define ourselves. I remember
talking about how even though I considered myself an anarchist, in
my heart, I identified with feminism the most and I wanted that to
somehow be reflected in our organization. My fellow organizer
expressed that there were aspects of feminism that she just
couldn’t relate to. I told her I felt the same way about anarchism,
picturing Rick Mackin and his ilk, in all their manarchist glory. We
decided to compromise and define ourselves as an anarcho-
feminist group, and since then I’ve been able to see more and
more clearly how these two concepts work together and help us
think of new ways to redistribute and rethink power dynamics.

"I believe that feminism is still relevant

because it speaks to the necessity to
generally redefine power in our society
and globally"
For me, being a feminist means learning not to put the idea of
expertise on a pedestal. Somehow along the way, I realized that
prioritizing technical knowledge over experiential knowledge is
patriarchal. What does it mean to “know how” to do something? Why
isn’t the action of doing something evidence that you know how to
do it? Why do people, especially women, convince themselves that
they don’t know how to do things they already do? Why is it
perceived that there is only one correct way to do something and
that you probably need to take lessons or read a manual in order
to learn it?
Knowledge really is power. Convincing yourself or allowing yourself
to be convinced that you don’t or can’t know things is dis-
empowering. I recently checked out this book The Power of
Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity by Amy Allen.
Allen breaks down three ways of defining power: as a resource, as
domination and as empowerment. Feminists who think of power as a
resource are basically the ones who think of Hillary Clinton as their
saviour. They see power as a resource that has been unequally
distributed and they think everything will be fine once women have
as much access to power as men. They want more female CEOs and
politicians. They don’t see anything wrong with the power structure
as long as women have an equal place in it.
Feminists who see power as domination define all women as
oppressed compared to all men. They wish to end male domination
and see power as something defined only by patriarchal violence
and the subjugation of women. This conception of power is very
black & white and relies on a strict dichotomy, and it doesn’t do a
very good job accounting for how race, class and numerous other
factors change the experience of power for men and women. Plus,
not everyone’s either a man or a woman, right?
"...race, class and numerous other factors
change the experience of power for men
and women."
Then there’s the idea of power as empowerment. Empowerment is
just a new way to define power—not as domination, but as “the
ability to transform oneself, others, and the world,” writes Allen. It
means that if you have confidence, skills or knowledge, you don’t lord
it over other people or use it to bolster your own ego, you share it.
It’s about seeing power as a nurturing force in the world. Allen
writes that the main influence for this idea of empowerment is
motherhood (in it’s most ideal incarnation)—fostering growth, not
submission through domination. This type of power benefits
everyone, not just women, and it can be applied to a variety of
relationships, not just ones between women and men. It also works
really well with anti-authoritarian and non-hierarchical ways of
organizing ourselves. Power to the people, not over the people,
right? This is an old idea that has yet to gain the popularity it
deserves.
 CLASS or is anybody out there?
We are all oppressed people most oppressed
by the class system, by them, and allows for
but there is nobody ‘out the continuing
there’ who isn’t also domination of these
oppressed by white systems over our lives.
supremacy, imperialism, We are tired of being
heterosexism, told that anarchists
patriarchy, ableism, don’t need to be
ageism…Pretending feminists, because
these systems don’t ‘anarchism has
exist or can be feminism covered’. This
subsumed into capitalist is just a convenient
oppression, doesn’t way of forgetting the
deal with the problem, it real ity of gender
just silences oppression, and
those so ignoring the
specifics of the
struggle against it.
Disability is a feminist issue
S.E. Smith

This article was originally published on the FWD (Feminists with

Disabilities) blog: http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/14/
disability-is-a-feminist-issue/

FWD is all about the intersection between feminism and disability

issues, so it’s worth talking about why I think (know) disability is a
feminist issue. I’ll note that this post is not intended to be a
comprehensive review, nor is it intended to be the final word on
the matter. It’s just a brief primer.
The short version of the reason that disability is a feminist issue is
that some people with disabilities are women. I know, shocking!
But I’m here to tell you that it’s true. And I don’t speak from purely
anecdotal evidence. According to the Centers for Disease
Control, approximately one in five American women is living with
a disability. So, people, science says that some people with
disabilities are also women.
So, if you identify as a feminist, presumably you are doing so
because you care about women and issues which affect women.
If an issue affects one in five women, it’s probably something
which you should care about.
But, there’s more!
Did you know that women with disabilities are up to twice as
likely to be victims of sexual assault and violence? Those certainly
seem like feminist issues to me, so it seems worth examining why
one in five women is at a higher risk of experiencing violence.
Did you know that people with disabilities are also twice as likely
to experience poverty and unemployment? Poverty and
unemployment are also considered feminist issues by many
feminists, in no small part because they tend to disproportionately
affect women. So, if you have conditions which already
disproportionately affect women involving some women more
than others, again, it seems worth exploring the causality behind
that.
Did you know that the wage gap is also more severe for people
with disabilities? The wage gap is often identified as a key feminist
issue; it’s the thing that a lot of non-feminists think about when
they hear the word “feminism.” Again, if you have a problem
which is recognized as an issue which affects women and you
find out that women women experience that problem at an even
higher rate than ordinary women, isn’t that a feminist issue?

This is called intersectionality, people. It’s the idea that

overlapping and interconnecting systems of oppression are
involved pretty much anywhere you feel like looking. Now, every
single feminist in the entire world does not need to address every
single overlapping system of oppression which touches women.
But every single feminist in the entire world does have an
obligation to make sure that deliberate harm is not inflicted by
ignoring intersectionality. That means that if the focus of your
feminism is, say, sex positivity, you need to think about sex
positivity beyond pretty white straight cis people without
disabilities. Because, if you don’t, there’s a chance that you, yes,
you, are hurting people with your feminism. And not just people in
general, but other women!
Heteronormativity
and the War of Language
Paul Challinor
One word I cannot abide being offensive and stupid it was to use
used is “gay”. Of course I mean that word in that way. He was
when the word is used to denote stunned. Of course he was one
crap, shit or bollocks. I am gay, of my best friends, he should
and I am gay because I am a have known better. He also did
man who likes men. I am not gay not want to offend me or hurt my
because I am shit. I have no idea feelings and I knew that. But a
where along the line this has lesson needed to be learnt. I
become acceptable, no idea used the aged old example of
whatsoever. But it has. And it “you wouldn’t refer to something
really pisses me off. as Jewish in a negative way
would you?!”. My friend was
Jewish, that example seemed to
Heteronormativity hit home.
The cultural bias in
favour of opposite- He immediately began
sex relationships of
a sexual nature, and apologising profusely and saying
against same-sex how sorry he was. I obviously
relationships of a accepted his apology and told
sexual nature because him that I just wanted him to
the former are viewed
as normal and the understand how offensive it can
latter are not. be to use gay in that context.
Everything was fine. But then
another dickhead piped up and
The most significant time I have everything turned quite sour.
faced the wrath of Another heterosexual male
heteronormativity was when a (surprise, surprise) who I was not
very good heterosexual male as close to turned round and said
friend of mine referred to a “I don’t understand why you’re so
situation as “gay”. He did not bothered, he wasn’t being
mean the same-sex loving kind. homophobic”. Quickly the tides
Granted, I was slightly turned. Bear in mind I was at my
intoxicated at the time, but I friend’s for drinks and I was the
basically went, for lack of a better only homosexual there. Suddenly
word, ape shit. I immediately everyone began to look at me
began barraging him with how awkwardly. I quickly told him that
referring to something as gay is the first time I had ever felt
fundamentally homophobic. He different to my friends. I knew
didn’t understand why. And then they could never understand why
everyone else began to not I took it so personally, because
understand why. how could it be personal to
them? They didn’t have the word
Heterosexism shouted at them in school,
Discrimination intending to be offensive. They
favouring heterosexuals had made the word okay to use
over those in same-sex and they weren’t going to
relationships. Distinct
from homophobia but understand why I had made such
homophobia is in all a fuss/defended myself.
likelihood the driving
force behind Don’t let them make it okay. The
heterosexism. language we use is
reflective of the
It was normal for them to say culture we live
“gay” and none of them were in. If we allow
homophobic or saw themselves for homophobic
as homophobic or agreed with language to
homophobia at all. So how could become
it be homophobic? I immediately normative then
looked like I was being over- we allow
sensitive. That was made pretty homophobia to
obvious. They understood where become
I was coming from, but they normative. And
didn’t necessarily agree. I began then
to look around the room, waiting heteronormativity
for someone to defend me and won’t be our
explain how it was, of course, biggest problem.
homophobic. No one did. At that
moment I became different. I felt
like I had transformed from Paul
to “Paul, the homosexual”. It was
********************************************************************

“I have come to believe over and over again that

what is most important to me must be spoken, made
verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it
bruised or misunderstood.”

AUDRE LOURDE
 Your You had You have a
No-one is
qualities opportunities passport that
uncomfortable
aren't taken where you were easily gains
with your
to represent born you access to
sexual
everyone
You're not too young orientation other parts
else from You are unlikely to be blamed of the world
your social if you are subject to a People aren't
group violent attack or murder uncomfortable
You're not too old with your
The world is set up in
The way you religion/lack
a way that means you
speak isn't of religion
can access what you
held against you You're (a) white(r)
need and engage with
/ pale(r) person
People don't it easily
make assumptions No-one would ever call you a "chav"
about you based People don't tend to assume that you're
on what you look stupid You are
like or how you genetically
dress male
Things you
You're not
say are taken
from the
seriously
global south
Other people You agree
aren't with many
suspicious of of these
people "like statements
you" Your society
You can considers you
participate in attractive
your society with ease and/or intelligent
You're only People don't make
You easily
attracted to the identify with a assumptions about your
opposite sex (cap)ability based on
particular gender
You don't have to You don't have to how you appear to them
choose between worry about your You can easily get
different parts immigration status/ food/water for you
of your identity lack of "papers" and your family
 <<<<<<this is not an exhaustive list.
All privileges were not created equal - some privileges
offset the lack of others; a lack of one privilege can
make the lack of another even harder. However, this is
definitely not about scoring the most/least points. This
is not meant to be an exercise in guilt (or pity).
Just because most people benefit from some degree of
privilege that isn't a reason to do nothing about it.
Someone else's privilege does not “excuse” your own.
This is an attempt to understand what scores points on the
privilege ladder and what doesn't.
It's a starting point for thinking about which parts of
the privilege ladder we prop up... and which parts we
need to take responsibility for taking down...

For the their privilege challenged accepts

that the person who challenged them
privileged ones: had a reason for doing so and to at
moving on least try to see the situation from
their viewpoint. The answer is not to
Anarchists who are serious about engage in guilty hand-wringing but to
getting rid of hierarchies need to see genuinely acknowledge what the
how they individually benefit from issues are and take steps to tackle
dif ferent types of privilege and work them as/if necessary. This isn't to do
towards dismantling the systems a favour to people from that
that enable those privileges. However, particular group, it's just what you
when privilege is pointed out to do if you want a world without
people that have it, it is rare that systematic domination by privileged
they are willing to engage. Anger, groups. Oh and the people who are
defensiveness, dismissal of the issues dealing with the fall out of the
raised and switching to examples of systems that ends up benefiting you,
their experience of prejudice they're not responsible for making it
(awkward conversation successfully easier for you to deal with your shit.
derailed) are more common. Privilege may be complicated but this
Alternatively, people are closed to doesn't change the fact that some
criticism and feel that they're fully groups benefit massively from it. If
aware of all issues faced by <insert you are in one of those groups, it's up
particular marginalised group here>, to you to take steps to make your
that they're getting it right. In fact, community one that invites
they have done so well, members of participation by all. And if you are not
<the marginalised group> should be willing to take those steps, maybe
grateful to have them on side. Both this means that you don't actually
kinds of response are hugely want a movement that is for
patronising and further embed everyone, just one for people that
privilege while pushing people away. are like you.
It is essential that anyone who has
 RESISTANCE or are we futile?
If the anarchist movement women do the washing up and
doesn’t recognize the power run creches at
structures it reproduces, its meetings/events? What is the
resistance will be futile. For as gender of the carer at home?
well as fighting sexism ‘out Now tell us if you believe sexism
there’ we must fight sexism ‘in exists: tell us why men rape;
here’ and stop pretending that why more women are battered
oppressive systems disappear than men; why more women are
at the door of the squat or the
used by the state to do free
social centre. Only a movement and unwaged work. Tell us – are
that understands and fights its you a feminist?
own contradictions can provide
fertile ground for real and We believe that in the anarchist
effective resistance. movement, the strongest
evidence of sexism lies in the
Ask yourselves this – do you choice we’re told to make
believe sexism exists within the between ‘unity’ and what-they-
movement? When a woman call ‘separatism’, between
comrade says she’s fighting the state and fighting
experienced sexual abuse or sexism. Fuck that! We refuse to
assault from a male comrade – be seen as stereotypes of
what do you think? That it’s an ‘feminists’ you can consume –
individual or an isolated case? like fucking merchandise in the
Or that it can happen – and capitalist workplace.
disproportionately to women –
because there is a system
which allows it to develop and
gives it life? Can we honestly
say that our own autonomous
spaces do not play a part in
upholding this system?
Ask yourselves this – Why do
fewer women speak in
meetings? Because they think
less? What is the gender of the Gloria Anzaldúa
factory worker? Why do more
For the Freedom of Myself
The liberation of myself from all that which reject those systems, but the
attempts to mediate, alter, and control confrontation must be explicitly offensive.
my thoughts and actions is the most The importance of creating spaces,
important struggle I can be involved in. communities and ways of living should
This struggle is fought from an not be ignored, but it must be done with
understanding of this society as an the knowledge that the more successful
abusive, white-supremacist, patriarchal the creation of these things the more
and capitalist system, which leads to a likely they are to come under attack. This
knowledge that in struggling for my own attack will be both insidious and obvious,
liberation means the obvious
to struggle against distracting us from
those entwined the insidious.
systems. I am These attacks
aware that having responded to on
lived in this the front foot, that
society without is to say, I must hit
this awareness for back before I’m hit
over two decades at all. What I’m
means that these suggesting for
systems are myself is an
embedded within existence which
me. However, self- responds to the
improvement or world in numerous
challenging the ways at the same
way these time, never
systems play out inside of me is not privileging one more than another.
enough. It must be done in order for me This society’s system is abusive, white
to avoid reinforcing those systems, but supremacist, patriarchal and capitalistic;
equally important is that I confront them. it mediates, alters and controls my
Similarly, this confrontation must not only thoughts and actions through a myriad of
be played out in the act of creating oppressions. The culture it creates
spaces, communities, ways of living
encourages a uniform behaviour and the to a certain degree they will occur, but
worship of property and ownership. It is their vigour and viciousness can be
not possible to live a life untouched by limited by regularly assessing the role
this culture; cultures are living things we play in their reproduction. Unlike the
which are re-appropriated, reproduced lifestyle options of eco-friendly living and
and recreated by all those living within vegetarianism there are fewer
them. The same is true for the dominant opportunities to hide behind
culture of the current society, it does not consumption choices. Instead honest self-
exist without those who live within it. It assessment is needed, this can be made
is for this reason it is of importance that possible by small groups of friends who
we challenge its fundamental are comfortable enough to be honest
characteristics in our everyday lives, with each about the reality of their
taking none of its assumptions. behaviour, but more importantly they
need to be internalised. This task is not
This society's system is
a small one, and neither is its
abusive, white supremacist, importance if we are to work towards
patriarchal and capitalistic; the total destruction of all oppression. It
it mediates and controls my is a task which we must take on with
thoughts and actions. utmost fervour and desire, at the same
The most ubiquitous of these challenges time recognising that it is only through
currently are eco-friendly living and practical experimentation that we will
vegetarianism. However, these have been find a way that is true. Focusing
co-opted by capitalism and have become ourselves and our energies on this alone,
merely “ethical consumption” choices. however, will not fully address all
Whilst there is a certainly a place for domination and mediating factors in this
living a day to day life which minimizes society.
ecological harm, it does not on its own Internalizing an anti-domination practice
challenge the abusive social relationships must work in tandem with the claiming
we exist within and reproduce on daily and creation of physical spaces that
basis. Further challenges need to take overtly challenge capitalist, sexist, racist,
place, limiting the ways in which we classist, and ableist assumptions. These
uphold white supremacy and patriarchy spaces can be, and perhaps should be,
are amongst them. There is no easy both temporary and permanent.
litmus test where these are concerned, Temporary spaces like discussion groups
or meeting spaces which last for as long I do not believe that internalizing anti-
as they are needed, and allow individuals domination practices, nor creating truly
to come together for brief periods of anti-domination, anti-capitalist spaces
time to discuss and assess the ways in will result in the liberation of myself from
which mainstream cultures assumptions all that attempts to mediate, alter, and
dominate their lives are a place where control my thoughts and actions. They
those assumptions can be challenged. must occur, but without direct
Alternatively, permanent spaces, such as confrontation with the dominating man
community centres and homes can be made systems of this planet they will
made and developed in order that we are not be enough. The spaces that we can
able to have permanent locations of create will always be under attack from
resistance against the dominating forces systems of power, particularly if those
of capitalism, civilisation and the state. spaces expand and grow to include more
Ensuring that these spaces are genuinely people. Those spaces will be merely a
challenging to dominant culture is pseudo utopian ghetto, as they will still
incredibly difficult. They will be inhabited exist within the context of society as
by people like myself who have spent the whole which will mediate who has
majority of their lives in a society which access to those spaces and who does
has so many different hierarchies and not. The internalisation of ideas will be
assumptions based on race, class, under constant threat, because unless I
gender, etc that they are walking talking am to spend my time only within those
versions of those hierarchies and spaces (pseudo utopian ghettos that
assumptions. This is why any resistance they are), I would forever come into
to dominant culture, any hope of contact with a society which is devoted
liberating myself, must include working to having its inhabitants internalize and
on internalising anti-domination ideas reinforce ideas which maintain the status
and ensuring that those ideas are also quo of domination, capitalism, racism
challenged within the spaces that I and the patriarchy. It would be a life led
inhabit. We must be vocal about these entirely on the defence, thus one which
ideas, encourage others to challenge us is not liberated but one that is quite
when we reinforce dominant culture clearly trapped. Only in attacking the
through our actions, as well as creating system and the forces that maintain it
and maintaining spaces where those can I possibly find moments of liberation.
actions are not accepted. How long these moments last depends
on the strategies and tactics that I self-defence, self-liberation, and the
choose to use, whether the attacks are destruction of domination.
forceful enough, whether they occur The things that I need to do in order to
combined with those of others, whether be permanently liberated are immense
my actions, along with those of others, and I do not believe they can be
are able to rupture this society for long achieved on my own. If I merely view the
enough to experience liberation for struggle for liberation as an individual
prolonged periods of time. However long then I have already lost. My struggle is
these moments last I think they are the entwined with the struggle of others and
only moments when I am actually free, a part of the struggle is making
when the threats, the coercion, the fear connections with others. One facet of
of retaliation and the silent oppressions state and capitalist oppression that
of this civilisation are not enough to holdreaches us all is the breaking down of
me back. those connections.
I do not want to Attacks against the system The most obvious
privilege these should be accessible to all, methods of doing
types of action over not merely the white male this are class, race
creating spaces and whose privileges are born and gender, but they
internalizing ideas. out of this society's exist in the ways we
If these actions are hierarchies and oppressions. form our subcultures,
organised and occur the ways in which we
within a group of people where sexism, find personal and collective identification
classism or racism exist then they will through our consumption habits, whether
shorten the length of my moments of they be the food we eat, the clothes we
liberation. Likewise the more these three wear and where we get those clothes
elements interact, the stronger and more from and the jobs/social functions we
affective each will be. Attacks against perform.
the system should be accessible to all, I live, and spend most of my time in a
not merely the white male whose subculture which places great emphasis
privileges are born out of this society’s on it’s ethical choices. Inclusion and
hierarchies and oppressions. Internalizing exclusion to this social group is often
processes, and creating genuinely non- predicated on performing certain
hierarchical spaces develop the “ethical” habits. These include, but are
possibilities that all can participate in
not limited to: veganism/freeganism, domination ideas. A refusal to participate
freeshopping, permaculture, recycling, in spaces which encourage and facilitate
cycling, renewable energy, composting, such behaviour is an active attempt to
home brewing, having an allotment, and generalize and spread the amount of
art and education projects based around attacks on capitalism and the state.
gardening or recycled materials. A lack of It’s because of this that I feel this
participation in these, or an overt subcultural baggage damages my
rejection of these, makes inclusion into struggle for liberation. If “ethical” work
the social group that much more difficult, and “ethical” consumption remain as
unless you have a regular supply of dominant as they are then there will
ketamine and dub always be a barrier
step. That these The anti-domination practices, between those
habits have actions and movements that I
who participate in
become so closely seek to be part of will always be them and those
associated with short lived whilst those within who do not. The
anti-capitalist the supposed anti-capitalist simple answer at
movements is to movement use their privileges to this point is to
these movements’ dominate the discourse. reject the
detriment. I don’t subculture, for me to step out of it, but
believe any of them have anything to do this does not take into account the fact
with building a movement which will that, like many subcultures, this one has
destroy capitalism, and everything to do created a supportive and protective
with white university educated men and environment where friendship and
women carving out an identify with affinity can/has occurred. As well as this,
which they can view themselves and much of the subculture has stemmed
each other as women and men of from genuine movements of resistance.
conscience and ethics without ever The road protest movements, Reclaim
having to challenge the pro-capitalist the Streets, J18 and the G8 in Stirling all
racism, classism, and sexism that they have their critics, but for me it is clear
have had ingrained in them through living that they, at the very least, resisted
in this particular time and place in capitalism and the state in some way. For
history. This behaviour is an act of these small reasons alone I think it
domination, it is a refusal to internalise would be foolish to reject them
anti-capitalist, anti-state, and anti- wholesale, but I am under no illusions
that there are people within the did this, and then talked to others,
subculture (whether you want to call it without attempting to persuade or
activist or environmental or whatever) cajole, without making assumptions on
who rely far too strongly on their what their needs and wants might be,
privilege, and with whom I will never find we might find that we can make deep
any affinity, and am actually in a very connections with people outside of our
profound state of conflict with. subculture. Then we can work on
I think that deep within the movements developing those connections, whether
that exist (and their subcultures) is a they are with one person or a hundred
need to reject capitalism and the state. and we might be able to do something
Unfortunately the privileges that we have, with those connections.
which have been given to us by The anti-domination practices, actions
capitalism and the state, have not been and movements that I seek to be part of
challenged vigorously enough. We pay lip will always be short lived whilst those
service to those privileges, we can talk a within the supposed anti-capitalist
good talk, but in placing such a great subculture/movement use their
emphasis on “ethical” work and “ethical” privileges to dominate the discourse. I
consumption we betray ourselves. And don’t want to stay part of a subculture,
as I said previously, this betrayal never mind one which is ignorant of its
damages my struggle for liberation. If flaws. Those of us who want to bring
instead of being evangelicals of “ethical” this capitalist society down must
low impact living, we detected the challenge those who attempt to distract
things which stop us from being fully everyone with notions of ethical work
free, un-mediated human beings and and consumption. If they ignore this
challenged those things, whether they be challenge, then they are guilty of
inside of us, or inside our communities, maintaining the shackles and chains of
or inside society as a whole, IF, after capital and the state which imprison us
asking questions of ourselves, we then all.
explained to others what we found, IF we
Against Prison Society
To act deliberately in this society; to attempt to live free from coercion and
control; to be genuine and authentic to one’s desires; to act truthfully and
with honest reflection; all of this means to risk prison. The physical
infrastructure of the prison system provides the means to contain those
who elude the infinite mechanisms of control that permeate our society;
those tools and instruments that attempt to order and restrain the misery,
anger, and frustration of civilised life.
And yet prison is more than the bricks and mortar of physical buildings, the
metal of iron bars and cell-doors. It is also a social condition, made
manifest each time we submit to the regimentation of work, each time our
faces appear on the screens of a security camera, each time we act on fear
rather than desire. To struggle against prison is not to struggle against a
singular institution; it is to struggle for the dismantling of the entire control
apparatus that has spread like a spiked mist into almost (almost) all
corners of our society.
The experience of prison, of the acute oppression and restriction of
freedom, is but a more extreme form of the
experience of everyday life in civilised
society. We all experience containment; the
only variable is the size of the container.
Indeed, the management of prison
complexes reveals in stark colours the
modes of operation of the state and its
instruments of oppression. It is here that the
spectacle of society outside is stripped bare, and the repressive measures
that everywhere prevail are left uncovered and clear. For example, a
reflection on prison labour reveals many of the underlying logics of
oppression characteristic of society at large. So when the British Justice
Secretary explains that the idea of prison labour is to ‘give these guys the
idea that work is a normal part of life’ and that if they want to escape the
vicious circle of being taken in and out of prison ‘they’d better get used to
working’, he reveals how prison forms just one part of an inter-locking web
of institutions that work together to oppress us. Thus prison becomes a
means by which people are coerced into the system of work (a much more
cost-effective form of control for the fear that stretches the gulf between
state). our heads and our hearts. It is this
fear that keeps us languishing in
When one of the expressed aims of
nervous hesitation with
prison industries is to ‘ensure
consequences writ large and
dynamic security by providing
blocking out
purposeful
motivations. It
activity at
is this fear that
relatively low
must be
cost’, this is
overcome, but
but an
weighs us
expression of
down like an
the underlying
anchor keeping
logic of all
us from just
work, with
below the
coerced
surface of the
activity
water, stretching to catch a breath.
draining any energy that could be
It is this fear that provides the fuel
used in ways which threaten the
for our prison society, that keeps it
dominant system (i.e. which pose a
functioning.
security threat). Similarly, the
government’s attempts to re- In order to overcome this fear, we
establish control after the prison must build secure communities of
rebellions of the 1980s and 1990s resistance that place the struggle
by introducing competition for against prison at their heart. As well
limited jobs and the privileges that as developing a robust security
come with them merely reflects the culture, this means building a
wider divide and rule logic of solidarity network with prisoners to
capitalism. continue the struggle against
oppression both inside and outside
For those of us who have never set
the walls. Effective resistance will
foot in a prison, the thought of
face repression, which means we
doing so is a great source of fear. It
have to be ready to continue the
is this fear that stops us from doing
struggle within the cages they force
what we believe needs to be done.
us into. We must also destroy the
It is this fear that eats away at us
illusion of freedom on ‘the outside’
because it can’t help but make us
that keeps us so compliant and
feel that they’re winning. It is this
controlled.
 IDEAS INTO REALITY and what’s in between?
There will be no future for differences?’. We will only
the anarchist movement if find common cause if we
it doesn’t also identify as recognize that our
an anarcha-feminist differences are structured
movement. Anarcha- by numerous oppressive
feminist organisational systems, and together fight
structures must exist within to end each of these
the movement to make systems, wherever we find
anarcha-feminism an them.
integral part of it. And you Our feminisms must be
don’t need to identify as a plural, they must be anti-
woman to be an anarcha- capitalist, anti-racist, anti-
feminist – every anarchist homophobic. Our inspiration
should be able to must come from the
participate in the struggle actions of feminists who
against sexism. have helped self-identified
The state’s incursion into women reach revolutionary
our private lives and the consciousness.
relationship between Our feminisms must be
sexuality and productivity
revolutionary.
from which it profits affects
people of all genders. The
gender binary system
violently allocates us roles
on the basis of our
anatomy. A refusal to
accept even these basic
precepts will be a great
hindrance to the movement.
You ask, ‘Can we find
common cause despite our Mbuya Nehanda
 Strengthening Anarchism’s Gender Analysis:

Lessons from the

Transfeminist
Movement
Author: J. Rogue
From: http://tinyurl.com/jrogue (Full article available at link)

Transfeminism developed out of a critique of the mainstream and

radical feminist movements. The feminist movement has a history
of internal hierarchies. There are many examples of women of
color, working class women, lesbians and others speaking out
against the tendency of the white, affluent- dominated women’s
movement to silence them and overlook their needs. Instead of
honoring these marginalized voices, the mainstream feminist
movement has prioritized struggling for rights primarily in the
interests of white affluent women. While the feminist movement
as a whole has not resolved these hierarchal tendencies, various
groups have continued to speak up regarding their own
marginalization – in particular, transgendered women. The process
of developing a broader understanding of systems of oppression
and how they interact has advanced feminism and is key to
building on the theory of anarchist feminism.
Transfeminism builds on the work that came out of the multiracial
feminist movement, and in particular, the work of Black feminists.
Frequently, when confronted with allegations of racism, classism,
or homophobia, the women’s movement dismisses these issues as
divisive. The more prominent voices promote the idea of a
homogenous “universal female experience,” which, as it is based
on commonality between women, theoretically promotes a sense
of sisterhood. In reality, it means pruning the definition of “woman”
and trying to fit all women into a mold reflecting the dominant
demographic of the women’s movement: white, affluent,
heterosexual, and non-disabled. This “policing” of identity, whether
conscious or not, reinforces systems of oppression and
exploitation. When women who do not fit this mold have
challenged it, they have frequently been accused of being divisive
and disloyal to the sisterhood. The hierarchy of womanhood
created by the women’s movement reflects, in many ways, the
dominant culture of racism, capitalism and heteronormativity.

Mainstream feminist organizing frequently tries to find the

common ground shared by women, and therefore focuses on what
the most vocal members decide are “women’s issues” – as if the
female experience existed in vacuum outside of other forms of
oppression and exploitation. However, using an intersectional
approach to analyzing and organizing around oppression, as
advocated by multiracial feminism and transfeminism, we can
discuss these differences rather than dismiss them. The multiracial
feminist movement developed this approach, which argues that
one cannot address the position of women without also addressing
their class, race, sexuality, ability, and all other aspects of their
identity and experiences. Forms of oppression and exploitation do
not exist separately. They are intimately related and reinforce
each other, and so trying to address them singly (i.e. “sexism”
divorced from racism, capitalism, etc) does not lead to a clear
understanding of the patriarchal system. This is in accordance
with the anarchist view that we must fight all forms of hierarchy,
oppression, and exploitation simultaneously; abolishing capitalism
and the state does not ensure that white supremacy and
patriarchy will be somehow magically dismantled.
Tied to this assumption of a “universal female experience” is the
idea that if a woman surrounds herself with those that embody
that
This “policing” of identity, “universal”
whether conscious or not, woman,
reinforces systems of then she is
oppression and exploitation. safe from
patriarchy
and
oppression. The concept of “women’s safe spaces” (being women-
only) date back to the early lesbian feminist movement, which
was largely comprised of white, middle-class women who
prioritized addressing sexism over other forms of oppression. This
notion that an all-women space is inherently safe not only
discounts the intimate violence that can occur between women,
but also ignores or de-prioritizes the other types of violence that
women can experience; racism, poverty, incarceration and other
forms of state, economic and social brutality.
The Transfeminist Manifesto states: “Transfeminism believes that
we construct our own gender identities based on what feels
genuine, comfortable and sincere to us as we live and relate to
others within given social and cultural constraint. (1)”
The concepts espoused by transfeminism help us understand
gender, but there needs to be an incorporation of transfeminist
principles into broad based movements. Even gay and lesbian
movements have a history of leaving trans people behind. For
example, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act does not
protect gender identity. Again we see a hierarchy of importance;
the gay and lesbian movement compromises (throwing trans
folks under the bus), rather than employing an inclusive strategy
for liberation. There is frequently a sense of a “scarcity of
liberation” within reformist social movements, the feeling that the
possibilities for freedom are so limited that we must fight against
other marginalized groups for a piece of the pie. This is in direct
opposition to the concept of intersectionality, since it often
requires people to betray one aspect of their identity in order to
politically prioritize another. How can a person be expected to
engage in a fight against gender oppression if it ignores or
worsens their
racial
oppression? There is frequently a
Where does sense of a “scarcity of
one aspect of liberation” within reformist
their identity social movements...
and
experiences end and another
begin? Anarchism offers a possible
society in which liberation is
anything but scarce. It provides a
theoretical framework that calls for
an end to all hierarchies, and, as
stated by Martha Ackelsberg, “It
offers a perspective on the nature
and process of social revolutionary
transformation (e.g. the insistence
that means must be consistent with
ends, and that economic issues are critical, but not the only
source of hierarchal power relations) that can be extremely
valuable to/ for women’s emancipation. (2)”

Notes
1. The Transfeminist Manifesto by Emi Koyama (2000)
2. Lessons from the Free Women of Spain an interview with Martha
Ackelsberg by Geert Dhont (2004)
 ACCOMPLICES
As a child I smashed cash machines, friends I carried these acts out with I
robbed students, broke into fancy found in stairwells, under bridges, at
houses, and set fire to stolen cars. raves and at school. We didn’t have
Sometimes with friends, sometimes consensus meetings we didn’t need to,
alone; sometimes it was planned and we already knew were we stood.
sometimes it was a spur of the Two decades later and my immediate
moment thing. I couldn’t articulate it life has changed, I don’t have the same
then, but now I can. I/We wanted to worries about where my next meal will
send a message to everyone who was come from or whether I’ll be able to go
having it better than us, whoever had home at night. I’ve been accepted into
the money, the power, whoever was the world of the included, where hot
included in the thing (whatever that baths are run easily and it’s not
thing was) that we were excluded necessary to lie in bed with one eye
from. The message to them was open. But I still want to send that
always “Fuck you, fuck you and your message, I still want to cause as much
world. Your world which keeps you safe damage to the world which creates
and me/us at the mercy of how things the included and excluded through
are.” These actions also had a direct state and capital. I want to use my
impact on our lives – money from the position inside the included as place to
students to buy us drugs and booze, attack from. My reasons for this are in
cool shit from houses to take home or many ways the same. Left over
sell to our neighbours, fires to warm us animosity for the damage this society
on the nights we were too scared to go did to me, and the damage it still does.
home and the smashing of a cash Because I am under no illusions that
machine gave us a giddy glow a sense just being on the inside, just because I
of control over our external world, have those hot baths and comfy beds,
which did not exist anywhere else. that I am not being systematically
These were acts of resistance, before fucked over by this society and the
we knew what resistance meant, when conditions it cannot help but create.
it was just about taking back a bit of
control, a bit of freedom and directly As a child I found my accomplices in
improving our immediate lives. Those attack, and as an adult I’ve found
through semi-autonomous social What do I mean by accomplices? In my
spaces, it has been possible that those case they are those who wish to
who do not wish to collect as much attack the entirety of social
capital as possible can still sustain structures, they are those who view
themselves. We are able to do this, this society as endlessly
because it poses no threat to the interconnected, those who do not see
established order of things. In merely multiple issues that need to be
minimizing our participation in capital resolved nor situations which merely
we pose it no need to be improved, but those
threat and are who see those issues and
allowed to situations as inevitable results
continue do so. of the current society. I may
Our aims of find connections with those who
encouraging wish to attack a particular
others to reduce issue or change a specific
their participation situation, but it should always
is equally of little be known by all involved that in
threat as a attacking an arms
reduction in manufacturer, government cuts
participation is or a fur seller, my goal is not to
still participation. Despite this I cannot end the existence of the thing that we
entirely dismiss this way of living, as it are attacking, but to create space to
creates spaces in which some discuss further targets and find more
accomplices in attack can be found. ways in which our lives are connected.
Those that want to minimize their It is from these connections that
participation in capitalism are accomplices are to be found. The
occasionally also those who want to connections maybe limited and thus
see its destruction. However, they we will not be accomplices for very
should not be viewed as the only place long, or the connections may grow and
to find accomplices. Those that find expand and we will be accomplices for
themselves in permanent structures many years, whether that be
which enable them to minimize their intermittently or constantly.
participation in capital will often find Why do I need accomplices? I don’t. I
themselves dependent on those can, and always will attack with all
structures, and those structures that comes from me, but this society
depend on capitalism. thrives on atomizing us, refuting our
collective impulses, and because of for their own.
this attacking with others is that much For me the largest difficulty here is
more powerful. In finding long term that it is easy to limit myself to
accomplices, those who share the working alongside only those who I
same to desire to attack society in its socialize with, those who attend the
entirety I am able to share my same bars, go to the same houses for
autonomy, to act with others in a way dinner, watch the same films, listen to
which represents the desires of all of the same music i.e. those who have
us, where each of us is acting for the same points of reference to me. I
freedom and against domination in a see the answer to this is to enter into
way which is true to each of us and different circles, primarily other areas
without coercion. Each of us knowing of confrontation with authority, where
that if further connections aren’t made particular individuals have identified
then we’ll not need act together again. an aspect of their life in which they
How many wish to
accomplices? confront
One. Six authority, and
hundred. act alongside
Nineteen. The them, not for
quantifiable them or on
amount does behalf of
not matter, them, nor as
what matters an ideological
is the quality of ambassador,
the connection. If it takes eight but as an individual who sees their
thousand of us to act together to burn struggle as connected to his own. In
parliament to the ground, then let each order for this to occur in a way which
of us know one another. I have no wish is mutually beneficial then I must take
to be one of those eight thousand if particular care to listen to the opinions
half of them want to build a new of all those involved, and articulate
parliament in its place. My thoughts myself and my motivations clearly, so
here, if they are not clear, are that I no confusion or coercion occurs. If I am
wish to struggle for my freedom with unable to work directly with the group
people I know, specifically people who of individuals, due to differing
wish to struggle for their own freedom understandings of power and
and in solidarity with others fighting collectivity then I am always able to
express my solidarity in other ways. In friends with whom I have many
taking part in activities which are full connections with, and as such I hope to
and vigorous acts towards my own have ongoing and honest
freedom from authority, but which are conversations with them, without
done with empathy ideological stagnation
for others involved or defensiveness.
in the same There is no one true
struggle. way to confront all
Participating in forms of domination
different circles will and oppression, no
allow different single strategy or
connections to be tactic which is
made and opens up applicable in every
the possibility of context. And I don’t
new accomplices to dare to presume I
be found. ever know the correct way to act in
But I cannot participate in movement any situation. I am however able to
building, in the development of a mass know which way is most appropriate
fighting under one banner, one ideology for me to act and know that this might
or one identity as this is a process of change depending on the context I find
homogenisation, a process which will myself in. The challenge is to learn as I
lead to the silencing of individual act, to embrace my autonomy and
voices and the erosion of autonomy. allow it to be an open expression of my
There are those that identify as ideas, needs and aims. I don’t believe
anarchist who believe in permanent this can be done in permanent formal
formal structures for organising organisations nor in isolation, thus the
themselves. It is important for me to need for making connections and
say that whilst I disagree finding accomplices, thus the need to
fundamentally with this, that I still listen carefully to myself and to the
wish to act in solidarity with them and others who I cross paths with.
to act alongside them when to act in
such a way would be appropriate. I do
not view them, nor for that matter any
other organisation or individual which
wishes to destroy the current social
order as an enemy. They are often
Some Resources Things we like/found interesting
[Doesn't mean we necessarily endorse everything they say]
Blogs & Zines
The Angry Black Woman theangryblackwoman.com
Black Feminists blackfeminists.blogspot.com
Black Looks blacklooks.org
Dark Matter darkmatter101.org
Dealing with Our Shit tinyurl.com/dealingwithourshit
Hack Gender hackgender.org
The Fword www.thefword.org.uk
Muslimah Media Watch muslimahmediawatch.org
Questioning Transphobia questioningtransphobia.com
Race Revolt racerevolt.org.uk
Shotgun Seamstress shotgunseamstress.blogspot.com
Vegans of Color vegansofcolor.wordpress.com
Zero at the Bone zeroatthebone.wordpress.com
Articles
Anarchist People of Color, Senzala or Quilombo:
tinyurl.com/senzalaquilombo
Feminism needs transfeminism:
tinyurl.com/transfeminism
Human Privilege:
tinyurl.com/humanprivilege
“Intersectionality” is a Big Fancy Word for My Life:
tinyurl.com/mylifeintersection
Other things
Are you a Manarchist? Privilege checklists
tinyurl.com/youaremanarchist Age: tinyurl.com/agepriv
Class: tinyurl.com/classpriv
How Not To Be Insane When Heterosexual:
Accused Of Racism (A Guide tinyurl.com/hetpriv
For White People)
Non-disabled:
tinyurl.com/insaneracist tinyurl.com/nondispriv
How to suppress discussions Non-trans (cis):
of racism tinyurl.com/cispriv
tinyurl.com/suppressracism White: tinyurl.com/privwhite
Some last words
W e think that these ideas are important and worth
discussing and would like to continue exploring
them, but to be meaningful this project needs to become
a conversation. We’re really keen that readers respond to
and involve themselves in the project by contributing to
this conversation in whatever way seems appropriate.
Submissions for future publication, criticism and new ideas
are all very welcome.
Contact us at dangerousconversations(at)riseup.net.

You can pretend we didn’t

come here, pretend nothing
was said.

You can purposefully

misunderstand us.

Or you can ask yourselves why

we came, what we meant, and
whether we’ll come back again.
 D ANGEROUS CONVERSATIONS is a
project born out of the struggle
to end systems of domination.
These conversations are dangerous
because they seek to attack the
oppressive structures that divide us
into those with privilege and those
without.
This is a collection of texts and
viewpoints that challenge the status
quo, to provoke responses and
discussion.

network23.org/dangerousconversations