BY VIRGINIA BROWN & SARAH STEPHEN
PERTH — This year's International Women's Day march here on March 10 was a huge success, with larger numbers marching with more energy and enthusiasm than for many years. There was also an unusually large number of supportive men, as the IWD organising collective had decided to encourage attendance by male supporters, something which it had not done for a long time.
Given its success, many rally organisers and participants were disappointed and angered by the actions of the National Union of Students' state women's officer, Belinda Clarke, a member of Labor's right-wing faction, who distributed an official NUS leaflet attacking the presence of male supporters and telling them, in the name of "women's autonomous organising", that they should leave.
Men's participation in IWD was welcomed by most rally participants, and it was certainly well-known by the majority of those present. Some women did attack men's involvement during the open mike session at the end of the day, but this provoked a heated debate, in which it was clear that the majority of women backed men's inclusion.
Despite this, Clarke's leaflet, and her personal approach to male supporters, put them in an awkward position: they had come to support the cause of women's rights but were then told that some women "will not march while men are allowed to be integrated in it".
The NUS leaflet patronisingly assumed that most of the female marchers would be discomforted by the presence alongside them of men supporting the same demands for women's rights — something disproved by the numbers and energy of the march itself.
It's simply not true, as Clarke argues, that to make feminist events inclusive of all women, they need to exclude men. Making women from all walks of life — straight, lesbian, women with husbands, with fathers, with male children — feel welcome, and making it clear that they can bring male supporters if they choose to, is the real way to be inclusive.
The NUS leaflet argues, "The women's movement must fight to preserve the gains it has already made in society and is forced to defend why women-only organising (autonomy) is essential to our movement", and "a male who truly wishes to end gender discrimination will understand that to speak or to march for women is to perpetuate the patriarchal and paternalistic values, which are the very foundation of our society and our discrimination".
Its argument that all that is needed to achieve gender equality is for women to organise autonomously, to boost their confidence to take on the world, completely ignores the fact that sexism is a divide-and-rule ideology, like racism and homophobia.
These ideologies serve ruling-class interests by ensuring that oppressed classes are divided and cannot unite — and it is that unity which is the precondition for a successful fight against their individual and collective oppressions.
The problem with such a separatist and autonomist argument is that men are considered the enemy, rather than the entire social and economic system which oppresses women and men.
Restricting participation in movements for women's rights to those with xx chromosomes, rather than all those willing to fight to overcome women's oppression, condemns our struggle to being perpetual and without chance of final victory.
Explaining its decision in a position paper of its own, the IWD collective argued "It's important men not be let off the hook. They should feel encouraged, even pressured, to: (a.) consider the issues — IVF, abortion access, childcare, body image and anorexia — and seek to understand the way they affect women, the importance of campaigning for change; and (b.) be prepared to take a public stand as a supporter of feminism.
"And it should go much further than participation in rallies. It should be about encouraging anti-sexist men as well as women to take up sexism and explain feminism to people in everyday life — for example, speak out against sexist harassment rather than ignore it or not see it as their responsibility; take up campaigns for women's rights in workplaces, schools, campuses."
Such an approach is a far more constructive one than telling men willing to support women's rights that they should leave a women's rights march.