Thank you for your kindly provided preview of the article you were submittingto NvT. I would like to comment.
The history of this issue as I remember it goes something like this. Acouple of years ago ANN got itself together enough to begin drafting acharter and principles. Among the items on the displayed butcher's paper wasa reference to the concept of patriarchy. A couple of men at that Gatheringsaid that they disliked the word and one even left the Gathering at thatstage because of this issue. I said that I had long ago resolved never tobelong to any progressive organisation which refused to come to terms withthe reality of this concept, or any which failed to endorse broad feministprinciples as the solution. I remember that Glen said she felt the same way.Since the issue was generating such strong feeling an interim circumlocutionreferring to "power over" and "oppressive systems" was used and the debate onwhether to use the word itself was agreed to be suspended until the followingyear.
This Gathering started with what seemed to be some nervousness on thissubject since Glen and Ed among others told me that Bryan Law (who hadn'tbeen at the previous year's gathering) would be even more vigorously opposedto ANN condemning patriarchy than had been the two men the year before. Towards the end of the Gathering Ed indicted at lunch that he would like todiscuss something with me. He told me that the afternoon's agenda includedthe item about the inclusion or non-inclusion of opposition to patriarchy inthe charter and asked what I intended to do. I said that if no one else did(preferably a woman) I would move that the word be included. Ed then saidthat he would support me if that happened although he expected the experienceto be quite personally painful for him, since if no women had joined thedebate by that time it might well be perceived as a battle between malepersonalities. I remember that I replied that there might well be agendasunknown to me operating inside of the Gathering which might stop some of thewomen there contributing for one reason or another, and while I respectedthat fact my own personal position which I had outlined the year beforehadn't changed, I would not continue to support any organisation which duckedthis question, or one which refused to affirm feminist principles to combatthe evils of patriarchy.
Ed's worst fears were realised and it did indeed look like "older men" (toquote you Anita) head butting each other in a ritual display of male strengthwhile the women remained silent. Why this happened I still don't know -although a couple of women told me after the event that they had beenintimidated by Bryan's passion on the subject.
At this stage I am very undecided as to whether I will bother to attend thisyear's Gathering, but ( like you) if I do I don't intend to take any furtherpart in this debate. Most certainly what interest I still have in ANN willtotally dissolve if a sanitised charter results from this Gathering.
Some years ago I attended a series of meetings in which the then GreenIndependents in Tasmania were transforming themselves into a political party.I was part of the Tas group of eco-feminists who asked that fighting theevils of patriarchy be one of the stated aims of Green Party.
The power wielders who were instrumental in forming the basic charter of theparty thought it might be too controversial and not politically wise to dothis. From that time on I lost interest in the Tas Green Party (Although Istill vote for them as the best of a bad bunch).
I would like to close by repeating that I don't personally think it worthwhile to put energy into any organisation or network which ducks thisquestion, painful as the debate on it might be.
Jack Lomax
P.S. I've just remembered Robert Burrows once advised me that if I was eversubmitting an article to NvT I should try to make sure that there was somereference to nonviolence. Feminism is - in my opinion - the epitome ofnonviolence principles.