Pushed by the Violence of Our Desires: A Statement Regarding March 4

Tags:
Over the past few days, dozens of communiqués, letters, and statements have been circulating regarding issues of race, gender, and disrespect on M4. We have no intentions of addressing or disputing particular accusations or narratives regarding M4 in this statement; these things will inevitably be argued about elsewhere. Here, we attempt to discuss the language and politics that have been used in framing these issues.

As queer women of color, we feel as if we are trapped in the middle of all of this talk about identities. We have had, for some time, our own frustrations with and critiques of a number of white men with whom we have worked. At the same time, we are uncomfortable with the way in which the identities of "people of color" and "women" are being used to critique and condemn the events of M4, because we – as queer women of color – don’t agree with how these critiques and condemnations are being framed. In fact, we're not just uncomfortable; we’re actually really angry about the way a small group of people, purporting to speak for the entire population of CUNY, has hijacked this rhetoric of talking about privilege and identity and deployed it in a fashion entirely too simplistic, generalized, and essentialist. Issues of privilege and identity are incredibly important to us and we wholeheartedly agree that they should be talked about. But as it stands now, identities like "person of color" and "woman" are being invoked in order to mask reactionary politics, and furthermore, are being employed in ways that contribute to the erasure of our identities as active participants in militant struggle.

Our political position is not one that comes from a platform. It is not even really a position so much as complete contempt for the system that forces us into the positions of "queer" "women" "of color" and everything that these socio-structural locations imply. White supremacy and patriarchy do not simply function by awarding some (white males) with privilege while denying it to others (women of color). Rather, the same mechanisms that create and maintain the identities of "women," "queer," and "people of color" also inflict their damage upon straight white men. And furthermore, we are all fucked over by capital and the commodity form indiscriminately.. Liberal feminisms and anti-racisms taught us that we just want what rich white men have – but we have since come to realize that we do not want that either. Our socio-structural positions mean we are even more fucked over under capitalism than any rich straight white dude, and because of this, our need to destroy this world is infinitely more urgent.

One of the major lines of discourse over the past few days has been about how a group of “outside agitators” attempted to get wild without the consent of the Hunter student body. We do not need the “consent of the people” – and when you sound like the fucking Constitution, it’s difficult to believe you really understand the material conditions of being a queer woman of color under capitalism. We cannot sit on our hands until “the masses” decide to act.

Of course, increasing capacity is crucial to building a critical mass of individuals who have the ability to shut down the system: a clandestine vanguard is not the answer. In a situation like M4, people are becoming aware of their collective anger and their collective desire to do something more than stand around and chant. This anger can be facilitated by working to stoke the fire or, alternatively, can be slowed when radicals prematurely throw logs onto the flames before people are in the moment. This is not to suggest that folks are not already angry or that they need to talk about their feelings to come to the realization that they're against the system; rather, it's to point out that there are better and worse ways to increase our revolutionary capacity. This is a conversation about tactics, one with important ramifications for “oppressed identities” most affected by capitalism and ineffective action against it – but it has been framed as though the privileged want action, while the oppressed want peace. We oppose this dichotomy wholesale: we assert that it is in fact the most privileged who have the luxury not to contemplate these issues in terms of effectiveness and totality.

The Hunter walk-out was called in response to a national statement from California demanding a general strike. The group who organized at Hunter in the weeks leading up to M4 included many of those denounced as "outside agitators" – individuals who were from the beginning interested in a day of direct action. A vote for having an indoor demo was passed by a coalition of (mostly) Hunter students. There was a framework in place for militant action to occur – if anyone hijacked anything, it was the people who colluded with campus security, the Hunter administration, and the police (these are all synonymous) by herding folks outside. This effectively crushed the radical potential of the indoor demo, and reduced the action to a PR event for the Left.

Some have claimed that the speakers at the rally were composed of women and people of color, and that interrupting them was misogynist and racist. We disagree with this employment of critiques of privilege. We are not against "straight white boys"; rather, we are against the processes that create and maintain these identities of "women of color" and "straight white boys." Whether or not the speaker at a rally is a woman or a person of color or queer is irrelevant in this moment: when she is speaking AT the crowd, when she is colluding with the State to crush militant potential, when she is maintaining the systems that oppress us, she is a politician. She is our enemy. To assume that a woman of color has our interests at heart, simply because she is a woman of color, is essentialist: fuck Condoleezza Rice.

We realize that some are put at risk by introducing arrestability to situations. We cannot dispute this. Some of us have been relegated to solitary confinement when arrested with a group of white people for no other reason than being brown, we have been sexually harassed in jail, we get slapped with more charges than our white friends. We are fully cognizant of the fact that some people are exponentially more susceptible to arrest, brutality, and sexual assault for no reason other than their skin color and/or gender. That said, these are also vulnerabilities we face walking down the street. Being arrested in a political situation means we are more likely to be protected to a certain extent from these possibilities. Our politics demand solidarity: we do jail support to keep tabs on those in custody, we know how to sweet-talk the bailiff to speed up the process, and we know how to get hooked up with lawyers – all of which mitigate the dangers that follow being arrested. Blaming the escalation of tactics for our vulnerability completely denies the fact that it is the cops who are doing the arresting, the state that presses charges, and white supremacy that puts us more at risk for arrest.

Finally, it bears mention that the reactionary use of politics based on race and gender obscures much more important conversations about racism and misogyny. It is crucial that we address the sexism of a dude using the word “cunt” as an insult, and more importantly, of furthering shame and stigma around STIs – which is problematic in and of itself, but also hampers the disclosure of STI status that is necessary for informed consent. More generally, "playing the race/gender card" to talk about strategic and political disagreements – for example, using the term "anarcho-imperialist" to create a narrative about "white downtown anarchists" rolling into the “POC” CUNY campus uninvited with intentions to colonize – makes it even more difficult to call out legitimate instances of racism and misogyny.

Perhaps some tactical missteps were made in the course of the events on M4. This is another conversation, one that should – and will – be had. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that something is always better than nothing: everyone is already complacent, already alienated. California said March Fo(u)rth – not stand around.

Love,
Some Queer Women of Color
New York City
bitches at riseup.net

**forward widely**

Speaking for myself. I think

Speaking for myself. I think all identity politics is a load of shit.

Captcha- to hastens

are you fucking stupid? did

are you fucking stupid? did you even read the statement? white boys like you are worse than the ISO.

@2nd anon: are you fucking

@2nd anon: are you fucking stupid? did you even read the statement? white boys like you are worse than the ISO.

what the fuck are you

what the fuck are you saying? 'identity politics' is a loaded term at best, but calling any recognition of patriarchy/white supremacy 'identity politics' means that you are either a moron or refuse to recognize oppressions that don't apply to you.

What do you do about

What do you do about oppression that would make me believe you care so much? I never hear any real solutions about this issue. I hear language neutering, sharing and caring and a bunch of nationalist styled populism, with a dash of college educated hypocrite. I found it worthwhile to study these issues, but most influences on the subject of oppression that anarchists use are leftists that make the broad and near-separatist statements about privilege. After more studying, in an attempt to find answers, all I've found are references to reforms to the system. If there is an anarchist approach that no one is talking about but I'd be stupid not to be participating in, please tell me.

since i'm assuming you're

since i'm assuming you're white, read the journal race traitor. You might get some answers there. Or look at the writings of the love and rage federation

The idea of being a "race

The idea of being a "race traitor" is the stupidest thing ever. It assumes that race is a viable way to classify someone in the first place. There are things about "white culture" that I enjoy and I'm not going to stop doing them because mostly other white people are into them.

In the words of Stephen Colbert "I don't see race. People tell me that I'm white and I believe them because I listen to a lot of hip hop."

How white people see "white culture."
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/

whenever i read Race

whenever i read Race Traitor, i jack off with a noose around my neck. guess that's just my white culture cumming out.

hhhhnnnnnnnnghhhh.

I've read race traitor

I've read race traitor theory and it all comes down to political reforms as well. Solutions were asked for...how about you give some?

"This anger can be

"This anger can be facilitated by working to stoke the fire or, alternatively, can be slowed when radicals prematurely throw logs onto the flames before people are in the moment. This is not to suggest that folks are not already angry or that they need to talk about their feelings to come to the realization that they're against the system; rather, it's to point out that there are better and worse ways to increase our revolutionary capacity. This is a conversation about tactics, one with important ramifications for “oppressed identities” most affected by capitalism and ineffective action against it – but it has been framed as though the privileged want action, while the oppressed want peace. We oppose this dichotomy wholesale: we assert that it is in fact the most privileged who have the luxury not to contemplate these issues in terms of effectiveness and totality.".............

"Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that something is always better than nothing: everyone is already complacent, already alienated."

Key word was "all" identity

Key word was "all" identity politics, which means even your political identity assumption post is a load of shit.

Captcha-for sneaker

Tsk tsk, always bringing

Tsk tsk, always bringing race and gender into it. Like people can choose.

Using an insult that is

Using an insult that is fully immersed within the logic of subjectivities assigned by the state is some citizen shit.

Did A News editors or the

Did A News editors or the authors post that ridiculous gun photo alongside the article? It really adds class and substance.

March 4th, M4, which is a

March 4th, M4, which is a version of the gun in the photo. Get it?

this website seems to be

this website seems to be getting worse....

Whomever wrote this is

Whomever wrote this is AWESOME!

Ditto. Good piece post-left

Ditto. Good piece post-left QWoC.

- a white hetero cis male

WHOever*

WHOever*

Best. Essay. Ever. - a friend

Best. Essay. Ever.

- a friend

Yawn. Bob Black writes

Yawn. Bob Black writes better.

Not really, and as a speaker

Not really, and as a speaker he made me fall asleep.

as an anarchist he makes me

as an anarchist he makes me sick.

as a human he makes me a

as a human he makes me a species traitor.

as an animal it makes me

as an animal it makes me want to be a plant.

as an organism it makes me

as an organism it makes me want to be a mineral.

as a part of earth it makes

as a part of earth it makes me want to be a Martian.

So good.

So good.

party is a great insult. so

party is a great insult. so is prick, pussy, dick, and so forth. lighten up.

party is pretty much the

party is pretty much the greatest word ever.

>> To assume that a woman of

>> To assume that a woman of color has our interests at heart, simply because she is a woman of color, is essentialist: fuck Condoleezza Rice.

right the fuck on! context, baby!

>> It is crucial that we address the sexism of a dude using the word “party” as an insult

is it sexist for a dude to use the word "prick" as an insult? is using any sexual organ as an insult sexist, regardless of the sexual organ(s) of the person doing the insulting?

like many writings, this one has stuff i consider valuable, and stuff i consider useless. i take what i like and leave the rest.

-y

>>is it sexist for a dude to

>>is it sexist for a dude to use the word "prick" as an insult?

do we live in a patriarchy or do we live in a matriarchy?

We live in capitalism.

We live in capitalism.

IS IT WOMEN WHO FACE ANGER,

IS IT WOMEN WHO FACE ANGER, HATRED, AND MURDER JUST FOR BEING WOMEN, OR IS IT MEN WHO FACE THIS DAILY HOSTILITY?

It's rarely either/or. It's

It's rarely either/or. It's more complex than that.

it's like a rubiks cube,

it's like a rubiks cube, dude.......

uh, no.
women are left out of jobs, kept poorer than men, beaten, raped, and killed everyday FOR BEING WOMEN.
MEN are not.
wow, that's so hard to understand, man!

This is a false statement.

This is a false statement. Men are beaten, raped and killed everyday for being men.

statistics?

statistics?

About 3% of American men —

About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.1

* In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.2
* 2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape.1

sauce

It's 1 out of 3 for

It's 1 out of 3 for women.

*That means 9 out of 10 were female.

"Pointing out the exceptions only proves the rule."
-Dr. Martin Ghandi Luther Washington, III

You are a moron. I wasn't

You are a moron. I wasn't pointing out exceptions, I was exposing a false statement.

That is predominantly a

That is predominantly a historical circumstance emerging out the previous economic dependency women had on men, not because women are women. Even the biggest misogynists are forced to accept the existence of women because women are necessary for the existence of the human species, they can accept black and white divisions between male and female. That is easy for our society to understand. Binary oppositions are permitted and even encouraged. What is not allowed is breaking said oppositions. Transgendered people, for instance, are unacceptable to a society based on binary oppositions (which many feminists unfortunately uphold and assist in reproducing) and thus face more violence than most women will ever see. Like I said, it's far more complicated than man versus woman.

Damn, some of you kids need

Damn, some of you kids need to read a little radical feminist theory. The rise of capitalism as the dominant exploitative economic system could not have taken place had there not been generations of institutionalized sexism, racism, classism (etc) to build on. The institutionalized oppression/domination of women by men is older than the existence of class-based cultures. Most primal cultures have separate spheres of (public and private) activity divided along gender lines, with attached importance and cultural values, with various levels of enforcement. While not institutionalized in the same way as others in clearly hierarchical societies, patriarchal mores -- like any other hierarchies -- are easy to build up into institutions. To pretend that such a thing has been incidental or aberrant within the context of the rise of civilization and capitalism is ridiculous. Given that, it is much more hurtful to use a female-specific insult than a male-specific one. Insults, like humor, are contextual and cultural. You may enjoy using "party" as a term of endearment, but that does not negate or even mitigate its use as an implicitly violent insult.
=Mister Grumpy

agreed, and do people

agreed, and do people realize that patriarchal domination got much worse because of the rise of the idea of private property?

if we measure domination by the amount one is able to be autonomous and provide for oneself, when the commons was fenced, women lost the gardens and fields that gave them the power to survive without a man around.

men were the only ones allowed to hold property then, thereby forcing women's subjugation to a man to have access to wealth/land/survival.

identity oppressions are TYPES of class oppression, and should be remedied by an improvement in the material, hard-cash wealth to equalize it with the dominant identity. just as we want to do away with rich and poor as anarchists, we should aim to do away with the wealth and poverty outcomes that exist between races, genders, etc....

' You may enjoy using

' You may enjoy using "party"as a term of endearment, but that does not negate or even mitigate its use as an implicitly violent insult'
What is this liberal righteousness? The Ranters had diffused moralistic impediments to the freedom to abuse anyone regardless of gender or race 8oo yrs ago.Violent insult is just that regardless of the words used,violence is spirit of the intention,not the vocabulary used.

I'd be interested to learn

I'd be interested to learn how you manage to disentangle the intention from the vocabulary. Since we are vocal and literate animals, we use language in addition to physical posture and other non-verbal expressions. An intention can certainly be conveyed non-verbally with an aggressive posture (arms raised, fists clenched) accompanied by a grimace, for example. Even loud grunting or prolonged growling, the deeper down the throat the better, is a clear aggressive display. But fighting words are called that for a reason. Terminology and vocabulary are always culturally charged; curses and insults are based on specific symbolic meanings attached to specific words/sounds. If I call you an idiot it's because the term "idiot" has a specific meaning in a context of competition for intellectual position. It would not convey the same level of contempt or scorn if I called you a daisy or a rock (unless I used the simile of you being as dumb as a bag of them). Given the history of how women are treated (with contempt, as property of men, as objects without legitimate agency) and perceived (as defective men, as not worth as much), insults that derive from female body parts are a continuation of the very real objectification, oppression, violence (from rape to murder to dismemberment) that has been done to women for centuries. The same case can be made for the use of pejorative English terms that incorporate "black" or "yellow" to communicate contempt and/or derision and "white" to convey purity and virtue; the very real history of racism deriving from Anglo-American culture is reflected in the choices of color-coding to distinguish positive from negative values.
=Mister Grumpy

Well, I can manage to

Well, I can manage to disentangle the intention from the vocabulary simply by invoking consciousness to recognise the futility of taking words to heart,and by assuming from my precedence in having the freedom to communicate with the object of my disgusting comment,they likewise should recognise the nuances of my grunts, growls, and whining negativity as the expected human exchange in an imperfect world.
I think derogatory words should be disempowered,just as the black folk have gotten to call themselves niggaz,I feel this unliberal approach would be good for all mankind,that we could call a spade a spade without political righteousness and its oh so fake utopian facade making puppets of us all.
If I called you a pompous prick I would expect you to wave your fist and call me a moron,which I would gracefully accept as true.These are only words or wind,not aggressive acts.

Mankind, womankind,

Mankind, womankind, childkind, omg, all these liberal indignations to just speaking as it is.
I'm amused by these types who discuss their ideas on rights and proper social etiquette, this objectified morality they impose, they have not even experienced non-western society in its rawness, that even indigenous peoples use genitalia and its action as a derogatory means of breaching and piercing the pride and arrogant vanity of polite false social masquerades.
As the other poster declared, genitalia are profane and the body is the temple to be denounced and levelled.

"Given the history of how

"Given the history of how women are treated (with contempt, as property of men, as objects without legitimate agency) and perceived (as defective men, as not worth as much), insults that derive from female body parts are a continuation of the very real objectification, oppression, violence (from rape to murder to dismemberment) that has been done to women for centuries."

TOTALLY AGREE!

Ms. Perceived Grumpy

"You may enjoy using "party"

"You may enjoy using "party" as a term of endearment, but that does not negate or even mitigate its use as an implicitly violent insult."

The word party wasn't considered vulgar until the fifteenth century, much less so an insult. It parallels many other words from other languages like the latin cunnus which is just another word for the female genitals.

Cf. "party: A declaration of Independence" and 'Reclaiming party' from "The Vagina Monologues."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.