The relationship between women and the Left has always been complex. That fact leads many women to take a more critical look at the gender politics of the Left, to question the design of the unspoken hierarchy, and for some of us, to pare the idea of what the Left represents to the bare bones of its meaning. To tout a reductionist point of view for just a moment, the place of men in the Left has never been threatened, debated, or questioned whatsoever (and rightfully so), while the place of women has been… Let’s say “complicated.” This is, of course, dependent upon who you ask.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are well-documented issues in any society or political sphere, that much has (hopefully) been made clear by being a sentient human being with decades of thinking and breathing on earth and understanding what happens to the other human beings around you. This is no different for leftist circles. In 2012, a member of the UK Socialist Workers Party announced that she’d been raped and repeatedly sexually harassed by Martin Smith, the former National Secretary of the organization. The “investigation” that followed demonstrated a noticeable lack of preparedness or willingness to respond to sexual harassment or sexual assault situations in leftist circles. Despite this being a pervasive and very serious issue, most groups have done little, if anything, to examine any harmful gender politics, underlying victim-blaming, or backroom misogyny that occurs in their circles.

This particular situation exhibited not only a lack of preparedness, but a reckless disregard for objectivity or fairness and obvious victim-blaming, as the Disputes Committee tasked with analyzing and voting on the final decision of the case consisted mostly of close friends and direct subordinates of Martin Smith. Not only this, but it was discovered that the woman had lodged an initial sexual assault report against Smith in 2011, two years before the investigation began. When it was finally underway, the line of questioning the complainant received were questions like “Is it fair to say you like a drink?’ in an attempt to discredit the victim and suggest that she was less likely to make wise decisions (I assume that’s their reason for asking that, I don’t deign to know the thought processes of misogynistic rape apologists). Despite overwhelming evidence against Smith, including another woman coming forward to admit that she, too, had been harassed by Smith, he was exonerated when the committee ruled that the evidence was “not proven,” but no reasoning was given for the ruling. Not only was Smith allowed to return to his usual post, but the central committee falsely stated that the leadership had voted never to discuss the claim again, and anyone caught doing so would be expelled from the organization.

This story is a problem that shows what happens behind the scenes of many leftist organizations. Many of you reading this will think to yourself “I’d never let that guy get away with what he did, how could they do that? What a bunch of sexist wankers!” and that’s what you should be thinking, but it’s not that simple. If it were that simple, those who harass and carry out sexual violence against women would not be tolerated and the problem would have largely been eradicated by now, but hasn’t been. Think of how he was able to absolve himself of all responsibility or punishment in the first place. Therein lies the problem.

When a woman tells her political comrades that she’s been experiencing harassment or sexual violence, she’s met with varying degrees of toxicity. The most common of which is being told that your comrades “won’t take sides,” especially if they knew the aggressor. Coming in a close second is her comrades simply pretending it didn’t happen, acting as if they hadn’t heard it at all, and hoping the situation will magically go away or somehow resolve itself. If neither of those things happen or are possible, the victim-blaming begins. Perhaps most often, the survivor’s personal life, political activism, sex life, drinking habits, even clothing choices and appearance are scrutinized. Any reason an apologist can think of to discredit her, even irrelevant things like what she was wearing at the time of the attack or the subjective level of allure that her aura gives off, ranging from 1 to “slut,” is used to tell her she was either lying or that she was “asking for it.” Her announcement is met with fervent and ruthless accusations of trying to destroy the character of the aggressor, or that she’s “too emotional” or that she “misread the things he said/did” and that he would “never do that” to anyone. Aggressors are defended vehemently from the moment the complaint is announced. They’re called a “good organizer” or a “hard worker” or a “great leader,” showing that even if it’s found that this person did harass or assault the woman, their talents and usefulness outbid the fact that they’ve been actively perpetuating sexual violence and hostility. Victims are even encouraged not to go to police because doing so would be supportive of state violence and oppression, and that continuing to seek retribution will actively divide the group, and “That’s not what you want, is it?”

This discourse and the hidden politics, bias, and assumptions driving it are upholding a status quo that justifies the prioritization of the interests of those who actively perpetuate sexual violence against women over the safety of victims of sexual violence and women at large. We adopt a legalistic attitude towards perpetrators, touting “innocent until proven guilty,” not realizing that, by extension, we assume that those who come forward are guilty of lying about the allegation until they are proven innocent. How do we fix this? It’s very, very simple. Reject the idea that we’ve been inundated with by the state. Reject the misogynistic narrative we’ve been conditioned by the state to perpetuate when it comes to allegations of sexual violence. The safety of alleged victims and others in the organization is more important than the feelings of the accused. If someone has been accused of sexual violence truly cares about the safety of their comrades, they will understand that it is more important than perpetuating the state’s failed and misogynistic partyline, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

Every legitimate or popular leftist organization has dealt with a scandal involving sexual harassment or sexual violence. I find that the way these situations are dealt with are often representative of the gender politics of the group as a whole. It shows their unspoken infrastructure and often reveals the exploitation of women’s issues while not being supportive of the women who participate in their organization or actively ignoring women’s oppression when it can’t be used for exposure or gaining a reputation.

You’ll hear a lot of catchy “ain’t no revolution without women!” slogans in leftist organizations. Banners, memes, and propaganda images touting a group’s support of their female comrades are common themes throughout. What’s interesting is the reluctance to allow women to actively participate. You’ll find that many of the same groups that have low enlistment numbers for women are the same groups that advocate for women’s struggles. There are a few reasons for this: 1) Women are leaving due to being underappreciated. 2) Our work and struggle is being supported and used almost entirely for exposure. 3) The group is actively using sexist practices that alienate women. 4) Word has gotten out that the group is a place that isn’t safe for women. I’ve found that you’ll see all of these reasons in a group with a smaller number of women. In December of 2015, two leftist collectives held an event to discuss women’s mobility in public spaces. All members of both collectives were invited and the women were invited to speak openly about anything they please. When some female members of the Awami Workers Party raised questions about some allegations of sexual assault and sexism in their organization, they were quickly shut down. It wasn’t until a feminist collective organized another separate event that the women were able to truly speak freely about their concerns and grievances.

This isn’t unusual for leftist women. In fact, it’s the norm. It’s often easier for a male-dominated organization to denounce any claims or complaints from women regarding sexual assault/harassment as false, rather than investigate the conduct of their male comrades. It’s a reality that women have endured for far too long. We’ve accepted that our admittances of gendered sexual violence will be met with hostility and we’ll be presumed overly emotional liars or attention-seekers, rather than being treated respectfully or taken seriously. Even outside this context, our work is often instrumentalized without giving proper credit. Our names aren’t mentioned at events we organize, our literature is appropriated without giving proper credit, and our voices are silenced when we speak about the instrumentalization of our work that’s just had the serial numbers filed off. Men are often given credit for their work in leftist spaces, resulting in promotions, good reputations, or general congratulations. Men even hold up the signs at rallies that decry the support of women participating in leftist organizations. I’ve watched my male comrades be promoted alongside me in the spirit of equality when I’ve done far more work than they have. Think about that. Women can work harder, but still receive the same promotion as a man to be fair to the man’s feelings and not based on the amount or quality of the work he did.

All of these problems can be explained in one sentence: Women are wanted, but we are not valued. We are seen as apolitical and ruled by emotion. We’re largely ignored or spoken over by men who feel that their discourse and opinions are more important than ours. When our voices are heard, we’re thought of as shrill, annoying, or unnecessary. We are openly demonized and labeled liars when we speak up about sexual violence against us. Men who tout feminism or women’s rights as a badge often use the label of being pro-women as an aesthetic, a smokescreen to avoid addressing a deeper issue with the way they practice their politics and conduct themselves. Our oppression and our struggle is treated as secondary to problems deemed more important. Interestingly, at the meeting of the leftist organizations where women were invited to speak freely and their male comrades were urged to remain silent and listen, men who interrupted some of the women while they were speaking were told that what they were saying was “less important than the issue at hand,” and felt the exercise was unfair. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

At this point, it’s important to remember that whether or not my telling you these things makes you angry or think that I’m a shrill, emotional liar, this is our experience.

What do we do? How can we change this infrastructure, this culture of suppression of women’s ideas, voices, and work? It begins with each person analyzing their interactions with women. When a woman comes forward with ideas, projects, and opinions, how do you feel about her speaking? What do you think about what she’s saying? If the words obnoxious, shrill, emotional, or unnecessary cross your mind, you need to change the way you interact with women. If a woman admits to you that she’s experienced sexual violence or sexual harassment, and you immediately wonder if she’s lying, you need to change the way you interact with women. If a woman is in the middle of a sentence and you begin to speak over her because you think your thought is more important than hers, you need to change the way you interact with women. If a woman tells you that something you’re saying is detrimental to women or outright sexist, and you respond with something like “But, my other female friends don’t mind when I say those things!” or “You’re just offended by everything,” you need to change the way you interact with women.

The problem with sexism is that a person thinks if they don’t acknowledge their own sexist behaviors and give generic platitudes such as “I support equal rights for women,” that they are not part of the problem. You’ll often hear rhetoric like “Ain’t no revolution without women!” immediately before or after that person makes a comment about a woman’s body or using gendered slurs or silencing women who are trying to speak. Sexism is part of a pervasive societal hierarchy. It is not a person outright saying “I hate women.” This is especially a problem in leftist organizations, because many men believe that any issue not related to class struggle or workers exploitation is secondary or unimportant. This is precisely why women feel alienated. Problems present themselves in the form of sexual harassment and sexual violence as well as garden-variety sexist behavior.

Leftist ideologies focus on abolishing social oppression and social hierarchies. The sexist behavior still seen in the Left is the result of cultural conditioning, messages, and behaviors that are created by the type of society we seek to abolish. If we are going to be leftists, real, true leftists, we must not only not participate in these behaviors, but we cannot tolerate them from anyone. Ever. To make leftist spaces truly radical and inclusive of the oppressed, we must change the form of our gender politics instead of just appropriating a feminist slogan. If there truly is “No revolution without women,” we must fight all aspects and embodiments of misogyny and patriarchy. We must ruthlessly attack the objectification of women, abandon the instrumentalization of our work and our bodies without giving proper platforms to women, loudly call out and abandon those who degrade or speak over women, and brand those who harass, perpetrate, or perpetuate sexual violence against women for what they are: Misogynistic, women-hating reactionary rapists. When I say “brand,” I mean literally brand them.

We must hold ourselves to the same standard to which our ideology holds us. To be a truly radical leftist organization, we must be classless. We cannot be classless if we uphold a status quo perpetuated by capitalism. We cannot allow women to be underappreciated, underutilized, harassed, assaulted, or objectified any longer. We are not the Left until we cease the urge to continue “business as usual,” relinquish the desire to use our platform to degrade women, smash our silent scenery, analyze the assumptions and prejudices that frame our debates, burn our seemingly invisible infrastructures to the ground, and emerge with something completely new, something unprecedented, something that looks like the end of the world to the status quo because it knows that these assumptions are active agents with important effects on our interactions with our comrades and that they determine the very content and form of our politics. Name it something holy, something mighty, something unlanguageable and indestructible; name it “Equality.”