éditions Blast & Meor Subversion iconoclaste et déboussolante

The Blast & Meor editions are pleased to announce the translation of the French brochure “Feminism Illustrated“ (44 pages in A5 format).

The first part of the brochure consists of the article “Illustrated Feminism or The Complex of Diana“ published in 1974 in the newspaper « Le Fléau social » (a newspaper from the FHAR, a revolutionary homosexual movement founded in Paris in 1971) ; this article is signed by Constance Chatterley, a pseudonym used on this occasion by Gilles Dauvé. It is followed by a long interview with the author conducted in January 2015. All this is preceded by a presentation of the mag « Le Fléau social » and the FHAR.

This is an opportunity to make a critical assessment of 40 years of evolution of French society and capitalism, and to discuss topics such as feminism, homosexuality, activism, community and identity, sex and gender, domination and exploitation, class struggle, revolution, communism, not forgetting the cinema.

It can be downloaded in PDF for free here.

All the texts except the ‘author’s note’ are translated from a French pamphlet published by Blast & Meor in May 2015. We warmly thank the comrades who have translated these texts. The author’s note was added into the English version. All notes are editor’s notes.

Blast & Meor : In 1974 you wrote “The Diana Complex” published in the last issue of Le Fléau Social¹⁵. Did you participate regularly in the journal and FHAR Group 5¹⁶ that produced it ?

Constance: I wasn’t a member of FHAR, but I knew Alain Fleig who organized Le Fléau Social. He was in the FHAR and came to encounter what we can call, for want of a better word, the ultra-left. Le Fléau Social dealt with sexuality and homosexuality, but in its own way. Its aim was to be scandalous, at which it never failed. Some issues sold more than ten thousand copies, but that didn’t last long. Alain Fleig was a maverick: after leaving the FHAR, he gradually became isolated. What Le Fléau was saying was too complex for anyone to understand.

“We support you fully”, the Marxist revolutionaries assure the women. “The oppression of woman is very real, indeed one of the worst of all oppressions. But nevertheless, it is just one part of a larger reality. Women must join the revolutionary proletarian movement!” “We support the revolutionaries”, the Women’s Liberation Movement affirms. “Proletarian oppression is very real, and indeed one of the worst. But it is only one part of a greater reality. The women must recognise their difference and organize separately.”
In this debate everyone is right – providing the presuppositions go unquestioned. None of the protagonists ask themselves what their initial positions really amounted to: what is this “Proletariat” they’re talking about, and this “Woman”? Is there also a “Man”? There’s something in it for everyone. But much harder than criticizing the adversary’s ideas would be to explain its social function – because if either side did that, they would also be forced to question their own.

You say society must integrate homosexuals.
I say homosexuals must disintegrate society.

Françoise d’Eaubonne

The Front Homosexuel d’Action Révolutionnaire (FHAR) came out of a lull in activity of the Mouvement de Libération des Femmes (MLF)¹. Lesbians fleeing or excluded from the Arcadie club (a stuffy “Homophile” organization) joined the MLF and invited some of their fag friends along to the meetings. In what is generally considered the founding act, they disrupted Ménie Gregoire’s radio show² devoted to homosexuality on March 10 1971. The FHAR was formed out of this action, initiated by the MLF. An alliance of women and homosexuals against fusty, reactionary, phallocratic France seemed obvious.

As explained in the introduction to this pamphlet, sex, man/woman relations or what is now known as gender were a major concern for Le Fléau Social. As this is a subject for which I have always had a special interest, soon after I met Alain Fleig, it became obvious I would write in the magazine on feminism, or rather on sexual identities. Nearly all articles were signed under fanciful aliases, and I chose “Constance Chatterley”. In those carefree days, no man or woman in the small circle of friends around the magazine had any objection to a male impersonating a female, even for a critique of feminism. (Times have changed, I know…)