This is a rough derief from the Subplot convergence

Look at what subplot tells us about the scene at large, and the scene’s hostile attitude to feminism
approach to activisim very vague
approach to theory and practice very vague and apolitical
approach to activism that emphasises “what’s happening out there”, not what’s actually affecting us
approach to activism that de-emphasises the struggle of everyday life (is this because its student-dominated and they don’t yet need to struggle with the imposition of everyday life??)
should be engage with the politics of DIY and try to embellish / respond to those politics?

  • There was a general DIY feeling
  • very low level of politics - especially feminist politics
  • people wanted us to wrap and deliver the politics to them on a platter
  • lots of informal networks created, it was good for forbes organising, maybe not for awol
  • the structure(lessness) of subplot lead to it being very fluffy, and studenty - this wasn’t really shaped to “what we as awol wanted”
  • we felt we provided the token womens group, and this was a product of the structurelessness of subplot - womens politics needs to be consciously taken up, and structurelessness doesn’t allow this
  • there were criticisms of our workshop being a womens only space. there’s a general feeling that women should be equal with men, give men a chance, or educate men about feminism. one guy did want to come, and he seemed nice, so it was a bit hard to tell him to leave (thanks Rox for doing it)
  • Cotton (from queeruption) made a comment to Amy that she enjoyed it being a fem-only space, and that the conference was a bit intimidating for women
  • the attendees weren’t new to organising, but seemed passive. They were politically passive. we see this as a movement away from politics in general (and toward organising / campaigning). we see this as symptomatic of DIY ideology in general.
  • We didn’t really get to the practical side of our organising / struggle for autonomy
  • This raises the questions: are we about action, or theory, or both? were these actions (subplot and the last weekend) contrary to our own aims and analyses?
  • we feel we just filled a void for fem-politics at subplot
  • the openness of subplot simply rewards privilege by creating spaces where educated white males can dominate (which they did)
  • On the monday, women were speaking about the lack of facilitation and how they weren’t feeling very comfortable in workshops
  • The zine was good - lots of good comments about it
  • Interesting question: what is the role of men in womens struggle?
    • Men should hold pro-feminist discussion groups where they come to terms with their privilege as men in a patriarchy
    • they should invite women to tell them how it is, and treat us like honoured guests
    • At the next conference, we should schedule a workshop called “Educated White Heterosexual Males Anarchists With Decent Incomes Deal With Their Privilege”, see who turns up and lock the door on them. ha ha ha.
  • Did we touch a nerve with saying it was a womens only space? why do men not give a fuck when we organise openly, but want to come in as soon as we declare an autonomous space??
  • Transexualism (can men in skirts enter a women-only space?)
    • Part of drag is enforcing patriarchy. A man’s right to ‘change gender’; a man’s take on ‘what a woman should be’; a man’s impression that ‘a woman is her purse and lipstick’. Maybe this is more about transvestism than about transexualism.
    • Is a woman in drag more confronting? probably. she challenges the patriarchal notion that a woman can’t control her self/image/gender and must be constructed from without
    • Some transgender people are genuine about being female / woman. Should be wary of making generalisations.
    • Men who identify as women have an obligation to be pro-feminist, or at least not to be anti-feminist