I was into political work since 2013. I have occupied various political spaces -informal activist groups, reading groups, political discussion groups, political social gatherings, trade union spaces, political party gatherings etc. In all of these spaces, it’s men who mostly speak. If a meeting is 3 hours, 90% of the time it will be men speaking.

In these meetings there are several types of men who take up space. Some men present political theories and ideas. Others seem to have this infinite capacity to remember information and even more stamina to share all the information they know. Some men would mix what they have read with their own analysis. Most seem to enjoy being the center of the conversation. Men would speak for several minutes on topics which could have been presented in a few minutes. Men seem to be incapable of taking less time. They often repeat themselves, give examples to explain a point which all of us understand. The ‘leading’ men often imagine themselves as revolutionaries. In left spaces there are men who think of themselves as the next Lenin and the Che. (I haven’t met anyone who thinks of them as the next Karl Marx yet 😊)

When I was younger I was in awe and intimidated by the amount of knowledge these men possessed. When I grew older I started observing the cracks in their analysis masked by an absolute confidence in what they are saying. When I was younger I used to think that somehow men are more knowledgeable than women. As I grew older I also observed how some men would steal the analysis and ideas of their female comrades and present it as their own. As I grew older I also learnt to quietly lean over to women in the table and ask them what they think. We would sometimes catch up after meetings to actually deconstruct what we heard in the meetings.

After over a decade of doing politics in Sri Lanka I can’t think of more than 10 Sri Lankan men whom I actually enjoy listening to and learning. That’s the other thing. The ones who actually know don’t speak enough.

Once or twice I have raised this issue. When I did, I observed that men would take it as a challenge. So the next meeting they would resolve to be silent. The silence is often not out of self-reflection but almost a challenge presented to women like me – let’s see how you do it. When this challenge was presented I have felt intimidated and uncomfortable. As we do not have much practice or confidence in taking a lot of time. So I would fail in this challenge. And the next meeting would be business as usual. When I lead a meeting the meeting finishes in a short time. I do not know to talk endlessly. I do not know to be patient and to draw ideas from people. I know only a few women who can do this. This is also not good. Longer meetings are good. It creates an environment to form political relationships and familiarities. However it also creates a ground for men to emerge as ideologues and power figures which creates a ground for abuse.

However things are different in women only spaces. Very rarely someone is commanding the space. Some women are theoretically sound and well read. Others are grounded in practice and would challenge theoretical assumptions. There is lot of exchange of ideas and experiences. There is a lot of laughter and jokes and food. There is talk about men, who seem to be in the sidelines for a few hours and not occupy the center.

So when people say ‘you don’t need women only spaces’ I say I really need them to feel sane. The liberation movement was one such space. For two years it was a breathing space for women to come together and talk politics and strategise. Unfortunately women are often torn apart in a patriarchal world and we ourselves start believing women working together is not important enough. So LM fell apart. Despite this, I still find myself in women only spaces. I find it easier to talk to discuss ideas, to laugh and to breath.