At the Network of Women Students Australia conference in July, GEMMA PINNEL, the National Union of Students' national women's officer, and SARAH LANTZ, research officer at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, spoke about the role of women's officers and autonomous feminist organising on campuses. This is an abridged version of their presentation.
In 1939, Virginia Woolf wrote in Three Guineas: "Nothing would induce the authorities camped within the sacred gates to allow women to enter. They said that God was on their side, Nature was on their side, Law was on their side and Property was on their side. The college was founded for the benefit of men and men only were entitled to benefit from its endowments".
Women have won the right to access to the education sector, but we've also come to recognise that the university is inherently patriarchal. It's a place filled with barriers and based on understandings of success and power that radical feminist activists need to challenge.
To build a mass-based feminist movement we need to have an ideology that can be shared with men willing to attempt to unlearn their sexism. Afro-American feminist bell hooks states: "We need a men's movement that is part of a revolutionary feminist movement. However, if the masses of men in our society have not unlearned their sexism, have not abdicated male privilege, then it should be obvious that a men's movement led only by men with only males participating runs the risk of mirroring in a different form much that is already oppressive in patriarchal culture."
So where is this space for men to learn about women's oppression? Is it via men's officers?
The autonomy of women's organising is a central starting point. Women's officer is a representative position. A member of the group which the position represents should fill the role. Having a male speak or act "on behalf of women" is inappropriate and paternalistic.
Women need resources and opportunities to empower themselves. It is imperative to recognise the political importance of women's-only organising, to defend steps to claim spaces, forums and (for some of us) society.
As bell hooks states: "Coming together to talk with one another is an important act of resistance, a gesture that shows our interests and concerns. It enables us to see that we are a collective, that we can be a community of resistance."
While recognising the importance of working together, we must not unequivocally accept that a woman is always best represented by another woman. The argument that all women are oppressed equally denies the reality of many women's lives, and ignores the issues of class, race, power and privilege which make living with gender-based oppression a different experience for different women.
Categories of "sisterhood" and "sameness" give privileged women an excuse not to critique the ways in which they participate in the oppression and exploitation of other women. The essentialist "I am woman" argument of second-wave feminism alienated many from the women's movement.
To not explore the variable struggles that many within this category face, is an act of violence and denial. But to de-construct the category of "woman" to a point where it becomes politically unusable is a strategic mistake.
While there are obstacles to exploring differences, it is strategically necessary for women from diverse backgrounds to work together. For women's officers and departments, exploring solidarity and collective struggle through and across differences is important.
An unfortunately prevalent view of women's officers is that they are "reverse sexism", that having the position discriminates against men. This hinges upon accepting that there is equality in society.
But the "starting line" for women is substantially different from men's. The disparity between men's and women's opportunities will not automatically right itself over time. It must be recognised and consciously addressed.
At the same time, women's demand for equality should not be reduced to a demand for "sameness" with men.
The concept of an "equity officer" — an all-subgroups-who-are-oppressed-thrown-together officer — is also fundamentally flawed. This is not to discount the excellent work that some equity officers have done, but the systematic discrimination against a diverse range of people cannot be tackled under an all-inclusive umbrella.
An equity officer does not foster the politics of autonomous organising. Even if the office bearer was representative of one or some groups which face discrimination, they would need to be a very exceptional person to adequately represent all these groups.
Whether it is through defending women's right to use the legal channels to tackle sexual harassment, or through running a "Thursdays in black" campaign, there are numerous examples of issues in which we can work in alliance with other women.
The visions driving our feminist politics are often hugely different. But recognising a common issue, then being ready to employ our different strategies, after challenging political debate, is a concrete way to move forward.
Creating unity and building solidarity is not always easy, safe or pleasurable and we must seek new ways of organising that are not only non-hierarchical and non-adversarial, but also far-reaching and empowering. As Audre Lorde said: "The true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but in that piece of the oppressor which is planted within each of us."