It is important that women’s protest voices be heard from movements with different strategies: we all have something to exchange with each other. Our activists are interviewing representatives of the Militant Anarcho-Communist Organization to remind us that the phrase “women’s place is in resistance” is not just a beautiful metaphor, and sometimes women make the choice to protest radically. For the initiative, whose representatives we interviewed, it is important to damage public infrastructure, not civilians, so all actions are designed so that no one gets hurt. You can read about the women partisans of the past, whom our heroines inherit, in a beautiful text by Maria Rachmaninova.
If you are in Russia, be careful about distributing this material, learn all the necessary cybersecurity guidelines if you are distributing any material about war and resistance.
_________________________________
Do women take part in your guerrilla actions? If so, in what capacity? Does gender affect camouflage and security, maybe women arouse less suspicion and so on?
Yes, we take an active part in guerrilla actions at all stages, from plan formulation and scouting (note: intelligence) to direct action and media coverage. To some extent, the distribution of responsibilities may be due to physical ability, but it often depends not on gender, but on a person’s individual characteristics: some people find it easier to carry a 15-kilogram bucket of igdanite, some can see better, some run faster, and some shoot more accurately.
Gender certainly affects disguise and security: the very presence of a woman in the collective transforms (in the eyes of the public and the police) a dangerous gang of shady types into a harmless group of friends walking late into the night. Because of the sexism ingrained in the ranks of the police, women tend to be less likely to be stopped on the street or in the subway, and less likely to be searched. We’ve had quite a few cases where, for example, when we pass through a metal detector frame, a signal goes off, and the subway policemen and janitors come running and start meticulously checking a young man (who, of course, has nothing to hide), while a girl with a gun stands quietly nearby. So it turns out that sometimes the man is carrying something heavy and the woman carries something dangerous (like a detonator) in a small purse, without arousing suspicion.
Also, in our experience, it is much easier for women in terms of disguise themselves – changing their appearance. At the action itself everyone looks about the same: as blackblock kids, but before and after the action, when it is necessary to look civil, a woman needs to dissolve her hair (wig) and roll up a dress, when as a typical male image, which should not attract attention, allows only minor changes, for example in the color of clothing.
Editor’s note: We clarified here whether we should publish such details and whether it would hurt disguise strategies, but we were allowed to publish in full to share with others.
If my questions are read by women partisans, I want to ask you directly: What motivated you to take radicalized action? What gives you faith in your way of resistance?
We were motivated to take radical action by the absolute necessity of these actions in contemporary Russia (as well as in many other countries). When you see over and over again that rallies and protests, art actions and legal struggles do not bring the desired effect; when people participating in such events, even if they were within the law, are detained, beaten and jailed; when you realize that society has no way to respond to state bullying and harassment, the desire to “take a brick and give them back” arises. In reality, of course, this is not just a destructive thirst: we want to show people that our enemies – state agencies, police and security services – are material and vulnerable, they can be harmed, and they can and must be fought. And also to show the workers of these structures that they should not rely on their impunity – “popular retribution” is just around the corner.
If we are talking about the radicalization of our anti-war actions, then the need and benefit of our actions seem obvious and tangible to us: to stop or at least temporarily delay sending military cargoes to the front (in the case of sabotage on military railroads) or conscripts (in the case of attacks on military registration and enlistment offices). This, in our opinion, certainly contributes to the achievement of our goals.
Have you encountered sexism and gender bias within your organization or your activist community?
Except for the occasional case of mansplaining (which, by the way, men also practice on each other) nothing comes to mind. Of course, our organization is not perfect, and sometimes conflicts arise, but not on the basis of gender. It’s just that it’s difficult to remain calm and impartial when discussing sensitive issues. But we try to work through cases of inappropriate behavior by periodically organizing takmil.
Takmil is a tool of collective reflection that came from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party rebels. It is used to monitor the atmosphere within the collective, to develop a respectful and sisterly/fraternal attitude among fighters, to prevent the emergence of hierarchy, etc. The comrades of the Tekoşîna Anarşîst collective have produced a pamphlet on this topic.
Many anti-war initiatives and their participants rightly fear radicalization and demonize non-peaceful protest. What do you think of less radical resistance strategies, such as those pursued by activists and women in other anti-war movements? How do you evaluate the effectiveness of radical protest? How do you think the demonization of radical protest and the discussion of its “ineffectiveness” affect your protest? Does this reduce people’s willingness to participate?
We believe that in order to defeat the existing regime, it is necessary to combine different forms of struggle, but as the experience of many other countries shows us, it is impossible to achieve this solely through non-violent actions.
In our view, the effectiveness of radical protest against the war, apart from its moral aspects, is assessed quite simply: the number of shells that did not reach the front lines and the number of people who stayed home, for example, because of partisan interference in the work of the military committees.
The demonization of radical methods of struggle undoubtedly hinders the achievement of our common goal. The dogma imposed on people that nonviolent protest is the only acceptable one has killed many nascent revolutions around the world.
If it’s safe and acceptable, could you share a general account of any radical action in which women were involved?
As a rule, a significant part of partisan action is walking. Long walks through the woods to explore the terrain, endless walks through city alleys to identify cameras and important targets. So it’s more likely to recall individual highlights from different actions. For example, when your glove caught fire from a spilled gasoline, and you were waving your hands feverishly in front of the military registration and enlistment office in the dead of night – such a fiery performance. Or when you sit in ambush in front of the police station, aiming for the front door, ready to shoot at any moment if the cops run out in front of their comrades attacking the building. Or like trying to unscrew the souring bolts on the hot rails leading to the missile depot in the heat of the moment, listening to see if a train is coming.
Do you have inspiring examples in front of you of activists of the past whose actions you draw on?
Among the enormous number of examples from history (many of which, unfortunately, are not heard of in school), the first to come to mind are Gudrun Ensslin and Ulrike Meinhof. We may not agree with their ideas, but their dedication and loyalty to their ideals inspire and encourage us to keep on fighting.
Thank you to the BOAK partisans who agreed to answer our questions.
Source: a2day