I Am an Anarcha-Feminist
November 19, 2010
Take some time out from your TSA protest or your next debate over the Lockean proviso to check your privilege, dudes. I’ll begin.
I am privileged because of my sex. I could choose to be defensive or learn. I choose to learn. I sometimes think and act in a sexist way and this is not compatible with anarchism. I can do something about it. I can not derail others trying to do something about it. I will repeat these words:
I, for one, hate men. Not all of them, but lots of them. And I hate them precisely because they act like men are supposed to act. I.E. because they are controlling, exploitative, rude, callous, and/or violent, just like they were brought up to be. I hate men who act like that and I hate myself when I realize that I’ve acted that way. I don’t think it’s because I’m a neurotic bundle of self-loathing or because I’m aiming to become one; it’s because I think that all of us men have a long way to go to break ourselves out of habits and beliefs that keep us from acting like decent human beings as often as we should. We grow up thinking that we have the right to do a lot of fucked up stuff and then we usually go on to do it at some point or another. Often at many points throughout our lives.
There are many men that I love and mostly trust but I love them and mostly trust them for the demonstrable steps they’ve taken away from the way that men are normally expected to act. And I’m doing what I can to help the efforts to change those expectations and those actions—in myself, and in others when I can reach them—but I can’t say I blame a woman at all if she doesn’t like most men or doesn’t necessarily trust our motives straight off the bat.
I am an anarchist.
I am a feminist.
I will not choose between them.
It is not possible to choose between them.
I am an anarcha-feminist.
November 19, 2010 at 23:22
Thank you for this. It is frustrating that so many people all of a sudden are so worried about privacy concerns with the TSA when these fuckers have been harassing people (especially women) for years.
And I appreciate this show of solidarity. It is also frustrating when men are too worried about how other men will perceive them to label themselves a feminist.
I especially liked what you said at the end. It is sometimes hard to know what to say when people ask ridiculous questions. Fortunately, sometimes we know people whose words we can borrow when we don’t know what to say.
—–
“That the problem shouldn’t necessarily be phrased in terms of “women’s liberation” but rather in “everyone’s liberation,” if we really want to dissolve gender stereotypes.”
I can’t endorse this idea. Yes, ultimately the goal is “everyone’s liberation” but that’s not a reason not to be specific about the fact that sexism is a major player standing in the way. I think all too often feminists get painted as being eliminativist about other forms of oppression when all they are doing is specializing. We have a long history of generalizing to “people” and “humanity” while at the same time assuming certain groups just don’t count, e.g. when “We the people” meant white, male, landowners. We need to be specific about the groups involved, otherwise we just end up painting over a problem that still exists.
As long as there is violence towards people because they are people, we need libertarianism; as long as there is disproportionately more violence towards women because they are women, we need feminism too.
[quote mine, from April; response yours]
November 20, 2010 at 14:27
Glad to know you can use logic on that topic at least. I was getting worried that you had lost your faculties of reason.
January 31, 2011 at 21:28
If men are privileged, why does the rule ‘women and children out first’ exist? Shouldn’t it be ‘men first’? Why are men only eligible for the selective service (draft)? Wouldn’t women be the only ones forced to participate if men as a whole were so privileged? If men are privileged, why are we still expected by women including many feminists to pay for their meals and things if we go out on a date? Why does ‘chivalry’, the notion of a man selflessly sacrificing himself for a woman’s protection exist if men are privileged? There are so many examples of things that completely trip up this preposterous, one sided theory. Do you feel like a chivalrous knight in shining armor by espousing these misandrist ideas? It may win you the approval of some female feminists, definitely not all because for many no matter what you do you’re still a man and thus still evil, but for the majority of women it’s going to have the reverse effect and expose you as a weak, emasculated male with no self-respect. While they continue to date and fuck ‘bad boys’ and you chumps keep wondering why.
February 5, 2011 at 16:58
You’re also a female, so why not att that to the lable you give yourself? Anarcha-female-feminist. I bet you’re a vegetarian too? Anarcha-female-vegan-feminist. American, perhaps? Anarcha-Amero-female-vegan-feminist.
Why do you need to make up a bunch of labels for yourself. What can’t you just be you?
February 10, 2011 at 17:33
Why didn’t I think of that? Oh wait…
Oh no! Not the precious gender norms! Because, you know, their preservation was totally an important part of my agenda.
I’m really too busy trying to respect women and actually being a nice person to be a Nice Guy®. Why they don’t get laid is fairly obvious anyway.
February 10, 2011 at 17:41
I knew my urologist was full of shit the other day when he grabbed what he said were my “balls” and told me to cough.
And give up bacon?!
I hereby adopt the label “you”…or is it “me.” Shit, this is so hard.
February 10, 2011 at 22:34
Dave:
Because chivalry is an exercise of privilege towards those who have been marked as being dependent on men. It is no different from any other form of noblesse oblige, except that it is far more common and deeply embedded in every aspect of patriarchal culture.
Dave:
Because military force is a central component of historical male power.
Dave:
… Come on, really? After chivalry and the draft, this is what’s got you up in arms? It sounds to me like you have a lot of personal grievances to work out. I’m sorry you find “women including many feminists” so baffling but I don’t know what it has to do with a radical feminist analysis of male power and rape culture.
Well, whatever. This is a serious political and ethical commitment for me — a matter of what is true about the society that we live in, and how I can and ought to treat other people around me. I didn’t get into this gig to try and convince more women to like me personally.
I can’t speak for Roman, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he feels much the same.
It’s interesting that when a man professes some support for feminist ideas, you do not feel content with confining your response to an attempt to show that those ideas are empirically mistaken; you apparently believe that you need to attack him for his assumed failures at living up to stereotypical norms of masculinity and heterosexual prowess. Is this intended to humiliate your conversation partner? If so, whether you succeed at that or not, I have to wonder what value you see in the attempt.