But does it work in theory? Androcentric blind spots and omissions

Since 2008 there has been a significant increase in politically informed art, activist art, and visual activism, often led by women and informed by feminism. However, the writers about this moment have been mainly men, mainly white, and mainly based in the USA. Such writers embrace radical politics, and we might assume they are allies of feminists; however, in order to build an effective, united, radical front, we must critically question all sources and structures of power. Many such post-2008 writings write women out of their accounts or romanticize the representation of women. What are the shortcomings of such writings of history and for theorizing the aesthetics of activist practices, and how can we build an inclusive analytical toolbox for an imbricated radical future? What are the new weapons for activism that are fleeing academic, artistic, and political patriarchal practices?