Why Mysogynists Make Geat Informants: How Gender Violence on the Left Enables State Violence in

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.truthout.org/why-misogynists-make-great-informants59966

Why Mysogynists Make Geat Informants: How Gender Violence on the Left Enables State Violence in Radical Movements

In January 2009, activists in Austin, Texas, learned that one of their own, a white activist named Brandon Darby, had infiltrated groups protesting the Republican National Convention (RNC) as an FBI informant. Darby later admitted to wearing recording devices at planning meetings and during the convention. He testified on behalf of the government in the February 2009 trial of two Texas activists who were arrested at the RNC on charges of making and possessing Molotov cocktails, after Darby encouraged them to do so. The two young men, David McKay and Bradley Crowder, each faced up to fifteen years in prison. Crowder accepted a plea bargain to serve three years in a federal prison; under pressure from federal prosecutors, McKay also pled guilty to being in possession of “unregistered Molotov cocktails” and was sentenced to four years in prison. Information gathered by Darby may also have contributed to the case against the RNC 8, activists from around the country charged with “conspiracy to riot and conspiracy to damage property in the furtherance of terrorism.” Austin activists were particularly stunned by the revelation that Darby had served as an informant because he had been a part of various leftist projects and was a leader at Common Ground Relief, a New Orleans–based organization committed to meeting the short-term needs of community members displaced by natural disasters in the Gulf Coast region and dedicated to rebuilding the region and ensuring Katrina evacuees’ right to return.

I was surprised but not shocked by this news. I had learned as an undergrad at the University of Texas that the campus police department routinely placed plainclothes police officers in the meetings of radical student groups—you know, just to keep an eye on them. That was in fall 2001. We saw the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, watched a cowboy president wage war on terror, and, in the middle of it all, tried to figure out what we could do to challenge the fascist state transformations taking place before our eyes. At the time, however, it seemed silly that there were cops in our meetings—we weren’t the Panthers or the Brown Berets or even some of the rowdier direct-action anti-globalization activists on campus (although we admired them all); we were just young people who didn’t believe war was the best response to the 9/11 attacks. But it wasn’t silly; the FBI does not dismiss political work. Any organization, be it large or small, can provoke the scrutiny of the state. Perhaps your organization poses a large threat, or maybe you’re small now but one day you’ll grow up and be too big to rein in. The state usually opts to kill the movement before it grows.

And informants and provocateurs are the state’s hired gunmen. Government agencies pick people that no one will notice. Often it’s impossible to prove that they’re informants because they appear to be completely dedicated to social justice. They establish intimate relationships with activists, becoming friends and lovers, often serving in leadership roles in organizations. A cursory reading of the literature on social movements and organizations in the 1960s and 1970s reveals this fact. The leadership of the American Indian Movement was rife with informants; it is suspected that informants were also largely responsible for the downfall of the Black Panther Party, and the same can be surmised about the antiwar movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Not surprisingly, these movements that were toppled by informants and provocateurs were also sites where women and queer activists often experienced intense gender violence, as the autobiographies of activists such as Assata Shakur, Elaine Brown, and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz demonstrate.

Maybe it isn’t that informants are difficult to spot but rather that we have collectively ignored the signs that give them away. To save our movements, we need to come to terms with the connections between gender violence, male privilege, and the strategies that informants (and people who just act like them) use to destabilize radical movements. Time and again heterosexual men in radical movements have been allowed to assert their privilege and subordinate others. Despite all that we say to the contrary, the fact is that radical social movements and organizations in the United States have refused to seriously address gender violence<1> as a threat to the survival of our struggles. We’ve treated misogyny, homophobia, and heterosexism as lesser evils—secondary issues—that will eventually take care of themselves or fade into the background once the “real” issues—racism, the police, class inequality, U.S. wars of aggression—are resolved. There are serious consequences for choosing ignorance. Misogyny and homophobia are central to the reproduction of violence in radical activist communities. Scratch a misogynist and you’ll find a homophobe. Scratch a little deeper and you might find the makings of a future informant (or someone who just destabilizes movements like informants do).


MORE at the link above --

[Starry Messenger]

1. k & r

Wow, this whole article is great. I hope everyone takes time to read it:

The state has already understood a fact that the Left has struggled to accept: misogynists make great informants. Before or regardless of whether they are ever recruited by the state to disrupt a movement or destabilize an organization, they’ve likely become well versed in practices of disruptive behavior. They require almost no training and can start the work immediately. What’s more paralyzing to our work than when women and/or queer folks leave our movements because they have been repeatedly lied to, humiliated, physically/verbally/emotionally/sexually abused? Or when you have to postpone conversations about the work so that you can devote group meetings to addressing an individual member’s most recent offense? Or when that person spreads misinformation, creating confusion and friction among radical groups? Nothing slows down movement building like a misogynist.

What the FBI gets is that when there are people in activist spaces who are committed to taking power and who understand power as domination, our movements will never realize their potential to remake this world. If our energies are absorbed recuperating from the messes that informants (and people who just act like them) create, we will never be able to focus on the real work of getting free and building the kinds of life-affirming, people-centered communities that we want to live in. To paraphrase bell hooks, where there is a will to dominate there can be no justice, because we will inevitably continue reproducing the same kinds of injustice we claim to be struggling against. It is time for our movements to undergo a radical change from the inside out.

[Tumbulu]

2. sadly true

I would say that misogyny is the root of all societal inequality issues and is a worldwide human crippler. Until men and women become able to complement each other rather than attempt to dominate each other society will continue to reward the biggest bullies. And usually the biggest bullies are the stronger men, although there are some very strong and domineering women. The imbalances from these types knocks all the rest of us who try to encourage cooperative coexistences off kilter and often ineffective.

And this little act goes on within the animal world as well. The longer I work with livestock the more I see the roots of all these issues.

[madrchsod]

3. learned that lesson in the 60`s

between being in the sds and my drug dealing friends i always tried to figure out who was who.

[pinboy3niner]

4. A lot of cops were "embedded" in the antiwar movement then

A friend of mine was active with Vietnam Veterans Against the War in D.C. 40 years ago, and was involved in the planning for large antiwar demos. In the permitting and planning process, a group of antiwar leaders would meet with law enforcement reps. In the following years, my friend discovered that the MAJORITY of the antiwar reps who attended those meetings were undercover cops who'd been embedded to spy on the antiwar movement. He said the undercovers were also involved in drug-dealing, using it to set up people in the movement who could be turned into informants.

[hobbit709]

5. Old Soviet bloc joke: "How do you play Russian roulette?"

You have 6 people in a room telling antistate jokes and you don't know who the informer is.

[varelse]

6. This is an eye opener

I'm going to share this with my activist sister who has experienced so much of what the article describes, first hand.

[William Z. Foster]

7. this needs far more attention

Lee Maracle wrote on the subject of organization and leadership - her stories about the movement back in the 60's and 70's and a phenomenon she saw happen again and again, that being the dominance of the various groups by white males and the imposition and enforcement of a style of organizing and leadership that is the style of the rulers, masters and colonizers. This then gets dressed up in fancy radical rhetoric, and supported and justified by their supposed superior knowledge and theory, and we don't ask if the way we organize, the way we see leadership is not itself having a more profound effect on the group than the goals and actual content of the discussion are. In order to "move forward" then, people either emulate the behavior of the dominant ones, or meekly submit to them. Rather than inclusiveness, exclusivity becomes the rule as all are driven out who will not respect the hierarchy and balance of power, or who try to express themselves in any ways at variance with or contradictory to the model for leadership and organization being imposed by the dominant few. Those dominant few are almost always white males, or people aping the aggressive, swaggering and bullying behavior of white males.

Here are some quotes from Maracle on this issue -

"For Native people, the ridiculousness of European academic notions of theoretical presentation lies in the inherent hierarchy retained by academics, politicians, law makers and law keepers. Power resides with the theorists so long as they use language no one understands. In order to gain the right to theorize, one must attend their institutions for many years, learn this other language, and unlearn our feeling for the human condition. Bizarre."

...

"Academicians waste a great deal of effort deleting character, plot, and story from theoretical arguments. By referring to instances, and examples, previous human interactions, and social events, academics convince themselves of their own objectivity and persuade us that a story is no longer a story."

...

"What is the point of presenting the human condition in a language separate from the human experience, passion, emotion and character? By presenting theory in a language no one can grasp, the speaker (or writer) retains authority over thought. By demanding that all thoughts (theory) be presented in this manner in order to be considered theory (thoughts), the presenter retains the power to make decisions on behalf of others."

It is white men who are dominating the boards, and the "winning" traits are swaggering macho male superiority. I hold that it is more white male privilege at play than it is radical or socialist politics there, and that people are cowed and intimidated by this, and that the attacks on people for emotionalism, personal stories and anecdotes, feelings and the like are part and parcel of a rigid and domineering white male persona and that this does more to support the ruling class and the dominant social group than anything else ever could, no matter how steeped in radical politics these leaders may be, leaders who bully their way to the top and pull rank with "radical cred." Macho brutality then gets its expression legitimatized as being more radical, more confrontational, and therefore more to be taken seriously, emulated and followed. So we admire, follow and emulate the very traits that are inseparable from the methods and manners and behaviors of the ruling class, the colonizers and the bosses and their henchmen, and therefore inseparable from colonialism and Capitalism itself.

This is why the movement doesn't grow - people hear radical talk but "smell" the same old bosses using the same old tactics and rhetoric. The dominant group at any board will not "go there" - feelings and community and relationship are rejected, the whole person cannot speak or be spoken to, because that would be "crap" (feminine and not masculine.) Hierarchical structure and divison of labor is insisted upon rather than consensual and democratic organizing, cerebral and academic approaches are used to the exclusion of all other human qualities. Anything that varies from the WASP approach, we are told would not "move us forward" (would not support and reinforce the hierarchical organization of the group and the authoritarian leadership model) and would "waste time" (would delve into areas that make the dominating ones very uncomfortable and challenge their control of the discussion and the group.) "I worked hard to be top dog, by studying Marx" is really no different than "I worked hard to be on top, by running a successful business and making a fortune." The qualities to be prized are macho and brutalized, arrogant and domineering, coldly calculating and cerebral.

Any talk of community, about friendships or relationships, about feelings, anything personal, any talk of personal struggles, any attempts to bring political theory down to the everyday struggles of real people, any talk about gender or GLBTQ issues, are mocked and ridiculed, characterized as "crap" that is "wasting our time" and keeping us from getting to the important stuff. The "important stuff" is lectures imposed on us by our presumed superiors.

Many of us have been pushing for years about talking more about racism - most recently the plight of the immigrants - we have been calling for social criticism along with political theory, and have been defending people for expressions of emotions or talk about community and friendship or for expressing political naivete on matters of theory and doctrine. Some of us have been talking about farming issues because this is a counterpoint to the urban-centric attitude of the dominant voices, who were raised in the urban stomping grounds of the dominant white males. It is clear reading Marx that the expropriation of farm land was the first stage of the rise of Capitalism, and also the cutting edge today for capitalist domination of the world as the land grab and corporate control over agriculture accelerates. That means that it is imperative that we discuss agriculture, colonialism, racism and sexism and homophobia, since these areas are where Capitalism directly impacts people's lives. Some have been trying bring environmental issues into the discussion and doing some great work there. Yet these subjects are ridiculed or dismissed - with great contempt and finality by some members.

It is no accident that gender issues, GLBTQ issues, environmental issues, farming and food issues, talk about community and relationships, about art and culture are the flash points. Those subjects challenge the dominance, the style and methods of organization and leadership of the urbanized white males.

It just cannot be a coincidence that in every group, and on every board, a handful of swaggering white males run the show, and always in the same way and with the same results - "get rid of the stuff that makes me uncomfortable or annoys me or that would lead to people questioning my power." This always causes splintering, disaffection, alienation, and shrinking participation, and robs us of the broad range of views we need and that foster points of connection and expanded communication.

More from Lee Maracle:

We didn't think much about the demands of the intellectuals...we assumed the intellectuals were smarter than we were, and, even more dangerously, that they embraced common desires. The words of the intellectuals came alive for us, breathed new life into our bent and tired bodies, and gave us the power to think thoughts and dream dreams. We loved them. We followed the direction that they alluded to - right down one blind alley after another. But we learned.

We found that intellectuals preferred the truth with its clothes on. They preferred polite discussions about abstract ideas and not the challenge that characterized our old ways. They preferred peace - at any price - to the inevitable consequences of social resistance.

...

The American Indian Movement began as a street patrol, fashioned after the Black Panther party, in much the same way that other Native militant groups were. Even the concepts of local chapters, national chairmen and mass recruitment into the organization were similar to the Black Panther Party's style of organizing. The politics were no different either. Culturally, the worst most dominant white male traits were emphasized; machismo and the boss mentality were the basis for choosing leaders. This idea of leadership was essentially a European one promulgated by power mongers.

...

Inherent in a people's philosophy is the sense of logic that allows them to see the internal relationships governing them. That logic guides their conduct, their governing structures, and their mode (way) of organizing far more surely than their vision of the future. We may all have a common goal, but the way we organize to achieve that goal will determine the results more surely than the goal itself.

...

I confess that I am an intellectual. I was at one time dismissive of this class but have since realized that, stuck within it as I am, alone with but a half-dozen "radicals" who are also attacked by this class, I am lonely. I want to be seen, heard, remembered.

...

There is nothing worse than being a woman who is dark, brilliant and declasse. Darkness is the absence of natural (normal?) class polish. Admit this, all of you. I laugh too loud, can't hold my brownie properly in polite company, and am apt to call shit "shit." I can't be trusted to be loyal to my class.

[Starry Messenger]

8. It does deserve more attention.

Speaking only for myself, "radical politics" always seemed like the same old stuff dressed up in Marxist buzzwords. You could see that it was males who were doing all the talking and the same social patterns forming. Why take the risk of having your energy sucked away and being dismissed by the dominating voices?

We’ve treated misogyny, homophobia, and heterosexism as lesser evils—secondary issues—that will eventually take care of themselves or fade into the background once the “real” issues—racism, the police, class inequality, U.S. wars of aggression—are resolved. There are serious consequences for choosing ignorance. Misogyny and homophobia are central to the reproduction of violence in radical activist communities. Scratch a misogynist and you’ll find a homophobe. Scratch a little deeper and you might find the makings of a future informant (or someone who just destabilizes movements like informants do).

[Lorien]

10. There's nothing wrong with being an intellectual. An intellectual is someone

with intellectual curiosity and the capacity for independent thought. Wealth (or lack of it) and a college degree often have no impact on it one way or the other.

[William Z. Foster]

11. of course

Maracle is one, as am I.

There is also nothing wrong with pointing out, as intellectuals, that we have perhaps the most co-opted bunch of intellectuals ever in history, and there is nothing wrong with talking about the ways in which we are all trained to be shills for the powerful and wealthy and enemies of our own people, antagonistic to the working class.

To say that wealth and credentials have no impact on a person's world view defies easily observable objective reality. Most educated people do in fact think that education affects their world view, so long as we are talking about positive things. Once we suggest anything negative, then people bridle at the suggestion that their education has made them biased.

Recently we had a discussion here about student loans, and dozens and dozens of people argued that the purpose of an education was to increase one's earnings and status, and also strongly implied that the educated were morally superior.

We also have a tidal wave here recently of posts blaming the working class people for the problems in the country. If that does not reflect a gentrified and aristocratic bias among intellectuals and educated people, I don't know what would.

[readmoreoften]

9. Sexism/homophobia/transphobia are more endemic to MLM and anarchist movements than

Trotskyist/Leninist organizations. Trotskyist and Leninist (non-Maoist Leninist, that is) organizations put a premium on building mass movements as opposed to relying on the heroics of individual militants or militant groups. When you're building a mass movement, you need EVERYONE, not just the 'enlightened' and the 'bold', and there is no romanticization of individual acts. That isn't to say that all MLM groups follow this pattern. The Zapatistas absolutely are inclusive of women and queers (although they also have strayed pretty far from their MLM roots.) The anarchist grouplets I see all have fierce anarcha-feminists--but unfortunately their fierceness seems necessary to cope with the "boys club" hypermasculine posturing of some anarchist fellows (Darby is an excellent example.) But the truth is, consensus organizing is fertile territory for sexism, because it creates an environment where the most aggressive members (even aggressive outsiders) will dominate a group by constantly hounded other group members until a "consensus" on their opinion is reached.

This is why Stalin abandoned some of the mass organizing tactics of Lenin and Trotsky when he came to power. He also reversed the reforms of the early Bolsheviks in the name of "the New Soviet Family" in 1927. Before Stalin came to power, women and gay equality were taken seriously. Abortion was made legal in 1920. Anti-sodomy laws were abolished in 1920. Same-sex marriages were performed. Voluntary sex-change operations on men and women were practiced and those who had the operations were given compassionate mental health services. This had no place under Stalin. Everything was reversed.

Also, Anarcho-syndicalist organizations reject Leninist/Trotskyist theories that organizing around political issues of oppression (sexism/homophobia/racism) are JUST AS CENTRAL as economic issues, because political issues divide the working class and the working class can't come together until these oppressions are addressed. For this reason, Lenin noted that the political oppression of even bourgeois (rich) women was an important revolutionary issue. Even today, Marxist groups are criticized for organizing around "lame stuff" like DADT and DOMA instead of focusing solely on workers' oppression. Marxist groups (particularly Trotskyist groups) are considered too "reformist" because they actually care about the politically oppressive conditions of real working class people today instead of arguing that unionization is THE path to revolutionary change.

On a personal note, I really see zero sexism (and I mean ZERO) in groups like the International Socialist Organization--which has female and gay leaders, publishes books on sexism and LGBT oppression, and so forth. I was at an event one time that really impressed me: people were cleaning after a party and I looked up and about 4-5 males of diverse races (3 nations) from across generations were huddled around the sink washing dishes. There was no de facto division of labor in the organization and no one had to scold the men or make a political argument for them to do their part.

Anyone looking for an organization to be involved with, I'd argue that sexism and the toleration of sexism is key. If an activist group tolerates sexism, run like hell. These groups will also be more likely to privilege (often phony) militancy that will get you in prison. Mass movement builders who don't tolerate illegal actions (not because they love the law but because they don't want to be informant-magnets) are the way to go.

[LooseWilly]

12. Well, that's food for thought.

I haven't seen much of this, but I'm male and I can raise my voice with the best of them. And, let's be honest, I haven't really been looking...

Something new to watch for, intriguing.

[Quantess]

13. What is a "geat informant"?

[MrScorpio]

14. COINTELPRO never ended. N/T