In lots of ways families are natural groups that people form to care and support each other. But there’s another, more sinister dimension to “The Family” that oppresses people (especially when those people are women, queer or children).

The Family isn’t just a natural social unit based on caring anymore. It is a rigid economic grouping of people into cramped lodgings and restrictive economic relationships. The Family ceases to be natural the moment that it becomes economically necessary.

The Family subverts the individual. Women are devalued in by an economic system that doesn’t pay them for any housework or child raising labour. Children are totally dependent on their parents for housing and food, and they are totally subject to their parents’ will. The most authoritarian relationship within society is that between parent and child. Some parents invert this relationship and become servants of their children, but they have the quick-release of adulthood – at any time they can regain their authoritative power. When you can no longer choose an alternative, then your individuality is no longer valued. You become “a wife” and “a mother”, and no longer have a name but “honey” or “mum!”.

Individuals who don’t fit within The Family structure find themselves: suffering under the dictatorial yoke of parents and patriarchs; cast into reactive youth cultures; or stoically struggling to maintain a single-parent family on the dole. The Family is the basis of society and to not fit in the family is to be different.

The Family benefits big capital because when individual workers group together, pooling their resources to survive. Wages only need to increase in line with the cost of providing a survival allowance to groups, not in line with the cost of supporting individuals in society. Only 80 years ago, the controllers of wages in Australia would calculate what a woman’s wage was worth by assuming that she lived with a husband and child who would each work – a woman’s wage was 70% of a man’s; a child’s wage about 60%. The Family in Australia has its roots in an economic unit where each party was bound to group together by the need to pool their wages to provide food and shelter for themselves as a group. The man, woman and child were all stuck - but women and children more so.

The Family takes on the cost of child raising and education. Choosing which school your kids goes to is an economic choice – what can you afford? If you sacrifice now, will your child become Prime Minister some day?

Today, little changes. The nature of family is still gendered.

Anarcha, feminism, autonomy and every day liberation

Workshop Notes for Subplot (28 August 2005)

Unpaid Labour

• What kinds of unpaid labour do we engage in (or are meant to engage in)?
  
  • Cleaning
  • Having kids, taking care of them, educating them, etc.
  • Psychological services
  • Being pleasant
  • Pretending that menstruation doesn’t affect us (part of being pleasant)
  • Being beautiful (shopping, consuming beauty products and fashion, ,
  • Sexual services - includes the provision of sex, being available, being attractive, courtship and mating games
  • Provision of comfort and reassurance
• Why do we do unpaid labour? (its easier, its gratifying, no-one else will do it / it needs to be done)
• How does it affect our autonomy?
• Can we have autonomy when we can’t access free time and/or can’t access the right to refuse to work in our “free” time
• Are there ways that we could stop or avoid doing unpaid labour
  
  • Is simply refusing possible?
• What are the traditional/ perceived consequences of refusing to engage in unpaid labour?
  
  • Being a ‘bad’ woman / mother / wife
• How does the struggle for equality affect us in doing unpaid labour?
• (Do we even struggle for equality? How about a struggle for autonomy and self-definition?)
• How does unpaid labour interact with class? Is it a class phenomenon, or simply more damaging to the working class? How does capitalism benefit from all this unpaid labour that we do?
• How do roles direct us toward doing unpaid labour, and who benefits?
• Do you get stuck working in your role, but outside your ‘area of responsibility’ (e.g. Playing mother to your boss)?

Autonomy

• What is autonomy?
• How do we “get” autonomy?
• Is autonomy the same as anarchism? What’s the difference?
• What, if anything, does anarchism hold for women (as women)?
• Is (political and personal) autonomy (from capitalism, from patriarchy, from hierarchy) possible?
• What roles are we engaged in? How do roles constrain us and prevent our autonomy? Are there roles that women especially play?

Anarcha / anarchism

• Can we define anarcha-feminism? (is it a ‘movement’, a philosophy, an attitude, or a resort to banding together against hostile elements?)
• At what point do we cease to engage in “the broader movement” which never really included or represented us in the first place?

So with St Barnabas church being razed to the ground recently, we thought it would be a great idea to publish pix of some graffiti that our fine heroine Batgirl imposed upon them almost exactly one year ago.

Remember kids, Jezus woz a zombie!

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

If you would like copy of the AWOL@Subplot zine (pdf format) … leave your email address below. We’ll cheerfully email one out to you (and then delete your email addy for maximum privacy.

Or email email us

… or download from here….

Lifted from The Tyrrany of Structurlessness by Jo Freeman

PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURING

Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of “structurelessness,” it is free to develop those forms of organization best suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean that we should go to the other extreme and blindly imitate the traditional forms of organization. But neither should we blindly reject them all. Some of the traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give us insights into what we should and should not do to obtain certain ends with minimal costs to the individuals in the movement. Mostly, we will have to experiment with different kinds of structuring and develop a variety of techniques to use for different situations. The Lot System is one such idea which has emerged from the movement. It is not applicable to all situations, but is useful in some. Other ideas for structuring are needed. But before we can proceed to experiment intelligently, we must accept the idea that there is nothing inherently bad about structure itself — only its excess use.

While engaging in this trial-and-error process, there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and are also politically effective:

1. Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks only by default means they are not dependably done. If people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which cannot so easily be ignored.
2. Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them. This is how the group has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise power,but it is the group that has ultimate say over how the power is exercised.
3. Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives many people the opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn different skills.
4. Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person’s “property” and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
5. Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because they are liked by the group or giving them hard work because they are disliked serves neither the group nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some sort of “apprenticeship” program rather than the “sink or swim” method. Having a responsibility one can’t handle well is demoralizing. Conversely, being blacklisted from doing what one can do well does not encourage one to develop one’s skills. Women have been punished for being competent throughout most of human history; the movement does not need to repeat this process.
6. Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one’s power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an opinion — without the group participating. The more one knows about how things work and what is happening, the more politically effective one can be.
7. Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press owned by a husband, or a darkroom) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also resources. Members’ skills can be equitably available only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

When these principles are applied, they insure that whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of authority will be diffuse, flexible, open, and temporary. They will not be in such an easy position to institutionalize their power because ultimate decisions will be made by the group at large, The group will have the power to determine who shall exercise authority within it.

One of the shining lights in the working womens movement today is the Global Womens Strike. AWOL totally support and encourage women to take strike action to unravel the yoke that binds us to capitalism and patriarchy.

This is a statment explaining the GWS from their website.

Demands of the Global Womens Strike

The Strike and its demands give a unique framework for grassroots women and girls to express our needs whatever our situation, race, nationality, age, income, occupation, dis/ability, sexual preference . . . in towns and cities but also in villages, where most of us live. We hope that whatever demands you highlight or add, you will list them ALL. The demands unite everyone taking part in the Strike, and to each local action they bring international power.

The anti-globalisation, anti-war movement, to which women are contributing so much hard work and energy, is just beginning to recognise that Invest in Caring not Killing is a perspective for winning.

That is why the central demand of the Strike is:

• Payment for all caring work — in wages, pensions, land and other resources. What is more valuable than raising children and caring for others? Invest in life and welfare, not military budgets and prisons.
• This establishes women’s entitlement – though we do the basic work in every society, our contribution is uncounted. The other demands are about specific needs, showing the ways that this first basic demand would change the world.
• There has never been so much wealth in the world and there have never been so many of us, starting with women and children, who have nothing. At this crucial moment, we women must make our voices heard and our collective power felt.

Demands:

• Payment for all caring work - in wages, pensions, land & other resources. What is more valuable than raising children & caring for others? Invest in life & welfare, not military budgets or prisons
• Pay equity for all, women & men, in the global market.
• Food security for breastfeeding mothers, paid maternity leave and maternity breaks. Stop penalizing us for being women.
• Don’t pay ‘Third World debt’. We owe nothing, they owe us.
• Accessible clean water, healthcare, housing, transport, literacy.
• Non-polluting energy & technology which shortens the hours we work. We all need cookers, fridges, washing machines, computers, & time off!
• Protection & asylum from all violence & persecution, including by family members & people in positions of authority.
• Freedom of movement. Capital travels freely, why not people?

Why go on strike?

Women do the work of giving birth to, feeding and caring for the whole world. Those in whom we have invested our lives are slaughtered as ‘collateral damage’ or turned into killing machines. And so we have been central to every anti-war movement. It is a disaster that only half the human race is trained to care and the other half told it has ‘more important things to do’.

As corporate power and its wars threaten every corner of all our lives, people everywhere have formed massive movements – to reclaim our land and our planet, and to stop the theft (via privatisation) of water, seeds, genes . . . The Global Women’s Strike, women’s independent voice in this great movement, reclaims military spending for caring, feeding, healing, learning.

Strike for:

• A world which values all women’s work and all women’s lives.

Strike against:

• “America’s new war” and all wars - women & children are most of those killed & wounded, and 80% of refugees.
• Globalisation - an end to no pay, low pay and too much work.

Can anyone deny that production should be at the service of caring, not killing and profit? Yet $800+ billion is spent on arms each year – and more money has been committed to bombing countries like Afghanistan where people are starving, and persecuting or imprisoning anyone anywhere who dares to oppose.

A strike is the strongest weapon that workers have, and women, who do 2/3 of the world’s work, are the hardest workers. When we stop, everything is disrupted.

Women and girls in over 60 countries made the first two Strikes a success by taking at least some time off from their work, waged as well as unwaged.

Of the world’s 100 largest economic entities, 51 are corporations and 49 are countries.

People everywhere see that governments are promoting corporate greed against us while lining their own pockets. They impose structural adjustment programmes and cuts in services and welfare benefits, impoverishing us and imposing killing overwork.

The gap between women’s wages and men’s is 25%-50% and growing, lowering our pensions and our social power at every age.

Together the Strike and its demands give a unique framework for grassroots women and girls to express our needs whatever our situation, race, nationality, age, income, occupation, dis/ability, sexual preference . . . in towns and cities but also in villages, where most of us live.

The demands unite everyone taking part in the Strike, and to each local action they bring international power.