#it's in and of itself an expression of the patriarchy like no self respecting feminist is saying that

[proudfreakmetarusonikku]

the thing about not all men is. obviously not all men are awful that removes responsibility for men choosing to be bad but also any man who says not all men is definitely one of those men. bc like people aren’t usually saying “all men are abusers” like that’s what conservative assholes trying to defend their abuse of their wife say to justify it they’re saying men by default are privileged by the patriarchy (and by privileged, it’s more accurate to say “not actively oppressed” bc the thing is oppression doesnt actually materially benefit the majority of the privileged class in any way but making them feel superior. rights are not given to them, rights are taken away from the oppressed class so the privileged class feels, well, privileged despite having like the bare minimum bc other people don’t have that bare minimum) which like. yeah. the patriarchy isn’t great for anyone but it specifically discriminates against women and not men (obviously this is oversimplified bc systems of oppression are interlinked and the patriarchy hurts marginalised men bc it’s idea of man is influenced by those other bigotries but like on a basic level. privilege is complicated and not like some pokemon type system but also like we are talking in broad terms about one specific system of oppression ok)

[delivermytuneo6]

Feminism in the Hip-Hop Industry: A Silent Revolution

Hip-hop, a genre born from the struggles and triumphs of marginalized communities, has often been critiqued for perpetuating gender inequality and misogyny. However, in recent years, the intersection of feminism and hip-hop has sparked a silent revolution that is reshaping the industry. Women in hip-hop, from lyricists to producers, are breaking stereotypes, reclaiming narratives, and challenging the deeply entrenched patriarchy in the genre.

A History of Struggle and Stereotypes

Since its inception, hip-hop has been dominated by male voices, often relegating women to the roles of muses, background dancers, or hyper-sexualized figures. Women who sought to enter the scene faced immense challenges, from being taken less seriously as lyricists to navigating overt sexism from industry insiders. Female rappers like Queen Latifah, MC Lyte, and Salt-N-Pepa were pioneers in addressing sexism through their music, but their contributions were often overshadowed by their male counterparts.

One of the most glaring issues has been the consistent use of misogynistic language and themes in hip-hop lyrics. Songs objectifying women or glorifying toxic masculinity have long been mainstream, creating a hostile environment for female artists to thrive. Despite this, women have continued to carve out spaces for themselves, challenging these narratives and demanding respect.

The Rise of Feminist Voices in Hip-Hop

Today, a new wave of female artists is redefining what it means to be a woman in hip-hop. Artists like Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, and Nicki Minaj have achieved massive success, using their platforms to assert their autonomy, celebrate their sexuality, and demand equality. Their unapologetic approach to self-expression is a feminist act in itself, breaking away from the traditional expectations of how women should behave or appear in the industry.

Megan Thee Stallion, for instance, has become a powerful advocate for feminism in hip-hop. Her hit single “Hot Girl Summer” not only became an anthem for self-empowerment but also challenged the double standards women face regarding confidence and sexuality. Megan has been vocal about issues such as domestic violence, body positivity, and gender inequality, positioning herself as a feminist icon within the genre.

Similarly, Cardi B’s hit song “WAP” ignited debates worldwide about female sexual agency. While critics labeled the song as vulgar, supporters hailed it as a feminist anthem that unapologetically celebrates women’s desires and freedom of expression. Such songs highlight the shift in hip-hop, where women are no longer just subjects of desire but are instead controlling their narratives.

Reclaiming the Narrative: Lyrics and Beyond

Feminism in hip-hop goes beyond lyrics. Women are now taking control behind the scenes, stepping into roles as producers, directors, and executives. By controlling the production process, they are ensuring their voices and stories remain authentic, rather than filtered through a male-dominated lens.

For example, rapper Rapsody uses her music to discuss themes of empowerment, self-worth, and systemic oppression. Her critically acclaimed album "Eve" is a tribute to Black women, with each track named after an iconic figure such as Nina Simone and Sojourner Truth. Through her art, Rapsody not only reclaims the narrative but also amplifies voices that have historically been silenced.

Additionally, initiatives like Women in Music and She Is the Music are supporting female creators in hip-hop and other genres by providing mentorship, resources, and opportunities to grow within the industry. These programs aim to dismantle the structural barriers that have kept women out of influential roles in music production and distribution.

The Role of Male Allies in Feminism in Hip-Hop

While women are leading the charge, male allies play a crucial role in amplifying feminist ideals within hip-hop. Artists like J. Cole, Kendrick Lamar, and Chance the Rapper have incorporated feminist themes into their music and public personas. For instance, Kendrick Lamar’s song “Alright” addresses systemic oppression and includes lines that challenge toxic masculinity.

Male producers and executives can also contribute by ensuring equitable representation and promoting female artists. However, their support must go beyond performative allyship, requiring genuine efforts to dismantle the systems of oppression within the industry.

Social Media: A Catalyst for Change

Social media platforms like Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok have become powerful tools for women in hip-hop to amplify their voices. Artists can now connect directly with their audiences, bypassing traditional gatekeepers and creating their own narratives. Viral challenges and collaborations often elevate feminist messages to global platforms, empowering women across all genres.

For example, TikTok challenges based on songs like “Savage” by Megan Thee Stallion have not only popularized her music but also created a space for discussions about feminism and empowerment. Social media also allows fans to call out instances of sexism or misogyny, holding artists and labels accountable in real-time.

Challenges That Remain

Despite the progress, feminism in hip-hop still faces significant challenges. Pay disparities, lack of representation in award nominations, and limited access to resources continue to hinder women’s growth in the industry. Moreover, the scrutiny faced by female artists—be it for their appearance, lyrics, or personal lives—is far more intense than that experienced by their male counterparts.

Women in hip-hop are often forced to walk a tightrope, balancing between being assertive and being likable. While male rappers are celebrated for their bravado, women are frequently criticized for the same traits, highlighting the persistent double standards.

The Future of Feminism in Hip-Hop

The silent revolution of feminism in hip-hop is gaining momentum, with women asserting their power and demanding equality in an industry that has long marginalized them. The future of feminism in hip-hop lies in collective action—women supporting each other, fans holding the industry accountable, and allies amplifying the message of equality.

As more female artists, producers, and executives rise to prominence, the narrative of hip-hop will continue to evolve. Feminism in hip-hop is no longer just a movement; it is becoming an integral part of the genre’s identity, challenging outdated norms and setting new standards for what the industry can achieve.

By fostering inclusivity and championing diverse voices, hip-hop has the potential to become a beacon of feminist progress—not just within music but across all cultural landscapes.

[bellaaldamas]

Transferring my replies here as well, in the right order:

That's definitely true about the gamebro and woke culture being two sides of the same bigoted coin. Somewhat similar to the "frat boy vs nice guy" culture in terms of perpetuating sexism on all ends. As far as characters like Angrboda go there's always the matter of pseudo-feminism (actually repackaged patriarchy as noted) and considering them less strong than the girlboss type. This happens systematically in other fandons as well (i.e Disney with the princesses who dare to not physically defeat the villains and Uncharted with Elena versus Chloe, both of whom are ultimately reduced to who is more "worthy" of being a love interest/prize for Nathan).

The "not like other girls" misogynistic stereotype - a precursor to "girlboss" trope - has been pervasive in the media long before the girlboss cliche itself became the go to woke points generating tactic for creators. Female leads who put down other women for having the audacity to have interests and enjoy activities said leads deemed "shallow"; or even lecture women who (the horror) were in their thirties and had the nerve to want to look good and be communicative and lively (I might or might not be looking at Daria Morgendorffer - a textbook example of glorified internalized misogyny) were not only hailed as feminist. But, in universe, were often completely blind to their own privileges and bigotry.

Then there were the fist and/or sword wielding, athletic female lead types who placed primary value on physical strength which came across as terribly ableist in many respects. That's when the writers started perpetuating a no less offensive "disability as a superpower" trope. That was to preserve the "not like other girls" types (supposedly "feminist" when actually not at all) while avoiding criticism and backlash for only treating physically/mentally able female characters as strong.

The end goal though was still fishing for woke points rather than writing well developed female leads. Then the girlboss trope became the new requirement for "feminist" storytelling when, in fact, in most cases those characters are thinly disguised patriarchal stereotypes and fetishist fantasies of "male feminists" like Wh*don and the likes of him. Thrud admittedly falls under that category and is a filler character which makes all the claims about Angrboda (whose presence in the story fundamentally changes and moves the plot each time she has a scene) supposedly being there "for woke points" utterly hypocritical. However, as you noted in one of your posts, Thrud still has the potential to become a deconstruction of the girlboss trope if she overcomes her toxic mindset (ironically, entirely influenced by the men in her life whom she couldn't even think and act independent of).

Gamebros and wokes encourage sexist, "not like other girls" stereotypes all the same, they just use different language for that (again, not unlike Alpha Males and Nice Guys).

Concerning anime female characters, most notable part of fandom's response to them is how misogynists appropriated young girls and women's interest in those characters because they felt threatened by it. Girls enjoy anime female leads because they can relate to them as anime girls are among the vanishingly few that still have self expression (emotional, romantic, intellectual, physical even if they ARE sword wielding and fit) and who are not created for woke points. Misogynists had to spin this characterization and reduce said characters just to their looks and sexual objects.

What's most challenging about Freya for both gamebros and wokes is that she was originally introduced as A) the Witch of the Woods vs your cliched formidable sword wielding Valkyrie type and B) not a perfect mother. Those were the sins both misogynists and progressives cannot forgive women for - and that is the prime example of how they are one and the same at their core.

The fact that GowR not only vindicated Freya but allowed her to not be defined by trauma nor turn into another "beautifully broken woman" stereotype only fueled their anger. Which, as I mentioned, meant nothing in the end because the developers still told the story they had planned out, never mind the trolls' entitlement.

I just wanted to say, thank you and the other fans from this part of the GoW fandom.

In a place full of trolls and gamerbros who turn characters that they deem annoying into irredeemable, useless bitches (Freya, Angrboða) and characters they do like are reduced to either prize for someone (Thrúd, Sif and somehow, Freya again) or into their masculinity idol (Kratos, whom they only accept as the testosterone caricature godkiller and his development seen as creators turning him soft. This claim is at it's peak with Ragnarok, but it was there back in 2018 such as wanting Kratos to beat or even kill Atreus for "acting like a brat". What a horrible mindset!) - It's nice to have a side with people who are welcoming, creative and genuinely fun to interact with.

Your analyses - both fandom and in-game inputs - are a delight to read. They're beautifuly written, intelligent and well formulared, I always feel smarter after reading them.

Apologies if you prefer to discuss this in DMs, I wanted others to read this too.

I wish you a wonderful rest of your day/night 💛

Thank you so much for this message, this kind of feedback truly makes existing in this - and, admittedly, other fandoms - worth it. Your summary of my ramblings genuinely took me by surprise as I haven't been "conventionally" active in the fandom intentionally due to negative past experiences with other fandoms. Those occasional inputs I do come up with are mainly hastily written bursts in broken English.

I don't make a secret out of the fact that in my experience all fandoms, definitely not just Gow(R), are toxic to varying degrees due to trolls employing the very same tactic everywhere they go. For one, it's creating the illusion of dominance of their opinion in terms of quantity (as they have no arguments to back up their stance other than canon twisting nonsense they clearly realize that "quality" is not their strong suit). To attain that, they resort to a number of other tactics typically used by abusers both online and in real life.

As such, whenever trolls see intelligent and thoughtful people refuting their "points" they know they cannot come up with a single canon compliant rebuttal. Therefore they dog-pile in droves as to wear down the opponent who inevitably has to stop responding to them at some point. Because a logical person who dedicates time and thought to formulate an argument, fact checks and brings up evidence and quotes from the source material simply cannot withstand a wave of unhinged trolling coming at them left, right and center. They certainly cannot respond to each ridiculous one line statement of the trolls (such as the types of statements you bring up, in the vein of "Freya is a b1tch, she should've DyEd instead of He**d*all!!11!!") by typing out a thorough and researched response each time. As it would require not just spending hours on it but repeating themselves numerous times over.

The above behavior from trolls is what caused me personally a burnout from the fandom culture overall and led to my taking a distance. When I engage with people in online communities I tend to avoid blanket statements and try to always back up my points with examples from canon. Trolls don't need any of that and always dismiss those points or, at best, make it look like they acknowledge them (by quoting back). But instead of replying with canon facts they resort to Strawman Arguments or Ad Hominem.

In Gow(R) and other gaming fandoms there's also the matter of the trolls looking for "backup" in the form of big bloggers/reviewers who express, in some respects, a view of the plot and characters similar to them. Which trolls use as another "proof" their opinion is supposedly held by the majority. But the uncomfortable - for them and those reviewers - truth is that YouTube community (a cesspool of trolling as of now) represents hardly even 1 percentage of the general audience (one that pays actual money for the games). Which at most passively watches some of those videos, mainly when they have a click baiting title.

A prime example is that "viral" video with millions of views about Atreus supposedly "having a crush on Thrud". Looking at the comment section it becomes obvious that the people leaving humorous and lighthearted remarks don't take the video or the title statement seriously. Whereas the actual trolls who consider Atreus a "selfish little runt" (c) but somehow good enough to be a prize/reward for Thrud (whom they either sexualize or treat as their girlboss self insert); and who deny that Atreus and Angrboda is the only canon budding romance arc in the series are the same four or five people/nicknames. Who can be observed under other Atreus/Angrboda videos with their nonsense.

Furthermore, trolls actively participated in making the "Atreus and Thrud" piece viral in the comment section for at least one Atreus/Angrboda tribute video by mentioning the AT video and the amount of views it has. And openly insisting it somehow "proves that the fans want" Atreus and Thrud as a romantic arc for Atreus - the very same character they consider unworthy of being a secondary protagonist let alone becoming the main lead of the series or having his own spin off. But, as noted, they believe him to be acceptable enough to become a trophy man for their preferred girlboss.

That in turn brings us to another issue of male characters absolutely also being susceptible to objectification and being reduced to love interests and plot devices for female characters whom fandom minority treats as a part of their personal power fantasy. Atreus hating trolls originally didn't even deny they hated Angrboda "by association" with Atreus - thus even they initially admitted she was intended as his potential romantic partner by the narrative - because women to them are just men's extensions/accessories. But when they realized this argument makes it very easy to dismiss them for the bitter misogynists that they are they changed the tactic (also classic troll pattern) and started to distort canon in order to invent "arguments" to justify not just their Atreus hating but also their Angrboda hating stance.

To "warm up" they originally started calling Angrboda a "woke points character" which I cannot stress enough is utterly laughable when coming from Atreus/Thrud shippers. Because if there is a woke points or fan-service character in GowR it would be Thrud and Heimdall, respectively. They're the only ones who could be either removed entirely (Thrud) or replaced/have their screentime reduced to one or two scenes and the story would've been exactly the same. Thrud's Valkyrie aspirations have no influence on the plot whatsoever and are a complete filler. I'm saying this not because I dislike either of them but because it's an objective fact that smashes troll arguments flat.

Then there is the matter of the trolls being unable to stand the fact that interactions with Angrboda is Atreus's healthiest and most positive relationship in the story. It especially challenged them that Angrboda always valued Atreus's personal choices and didn't once question him (even when she disagreed with his train of action), his moral character or his right to take his own independent decisions (on the contrary, Thrud questioned his every move and deemed him untrustworthy the moment he made one, genuine mistake with Garm - and the trolls deemed it admirable because "finally someone put that little runt in place"; they don't actually ship Atreus and Thrud, they ship their own aggression and disdain towards Atreus projected onto Thrud).

Angrboda let Atreus exercise his agency (another troll nightmare as they cannot stand the very idea of Atreus having any) even when his actions went directly against her mother's words about the giant marbles or against the prophesy itself. That is, despite Angrboda considering the prophesy which killed both of her parents her lifeline. And believing that delivering said prophesy and the giant souls to Loki was her one and only mission in the existence full of loneliness (years of not speaking to another person, per Angrboda's own admission). As well as full of hard labor she had to engage in daily at a strikingly young age (purely out of love and sense of responsibility for every living thing in Ironwood) because there was no one around to help her (Atreus understandably expressed astonishment and admiration at that which Angrboda appreciated but - which is no less important - pointed out they're the same age; implying that she knows and acknowledges Atreus/Loki has gone through a lot himself and fared well). Even Angrboda's grandmother broke due to challenges that only made Angrboda more caring and compassionate.

Which is another point worth addressing about fandom culture because it tends to put down gentle and vulnerable girls and women as "unfeminist". Modern "feminism" has little to do with woman empowerment or rights and is a repackaged patriarchy that praises women/female characters as strong and independent only when they take the aggressor and conqueror mantle from a man.

Kratos fell a victim of a similar thinking on part of both the gamebro AND the "progressive" segment of the fandom. I realize Tumblr is not ready yet for that conversation, but masculinity is not inherently toxic and neither is femininity. What both gamebros and woke types cannot handle is that Kratos's development and Angrboda's character represent the type of masculinity and femininity, respectively, that isn't imposed on them by the sexist society but that is based completely on their free will and life experience. Moreover, Thrud is the one who was heavily influenced by the toxic environment she grew up in. Therefore considering her a "feminist icon" is both factually wrong and unwise (even if we discount her "treacherous ex wife" comment in regards to Freya because that was ALSO a part of Odin's toxic influence that she can now, hopefully, work through and move on from).

But the most delightful part is that none of those troll views and arguments have proven to matter at all. GowR developers went on to do literally every single thing trolls dreaded. Freya was not made into a "big bad b!tch who deserved to be killed by Kratos for being a less than perfect mother" (even though not only was Kratos the furthest thing from the father of the year in Gow18 but as you note, the very same people wouldn't object to physical violence against Atreus at his hands). Kratos continued to work towards healthier existence and carving a better path. Angrboda remained an emotionally mature, loving, caring and independent person with a potential of her relationship with Atreus going further in the following installments. Atreus is clearly set up to have his own spin off or remain a secondary protagonist or even become the main protagonist next game. That in and of itself is a prime example of how irrelevant trolls and their entitled demands are in the grand scheme of things.

That being said, as I always point out, we should keep in mind we cannot control media we consume, only our experience with it. A healthy emotional distance from it is the only way to avoid stress if/when the writers come up with decisions we might not like or find offensive. Mental well being should be our priority and media created by others should never define us.

Thank you again for this positive and inspiring message. Have a great and fulfilling time yourself <3

[mueritos]

so glad people are realizing these ideas of “rationality” or “logical arguments” (whether this applies to any sort of “discourse” but here I mean on the topic of transmedicalism”) are all rooted in white supremacy and the patriarchy. And I don’t mean using logic to discuss glucose cells or bouyancy, im talking about the concept that we must approach complex human issues in the most rational way possible to remove all biases. Transmeds like Kevin Garrage and Blaire Racist like to parade themselves as The Most Logical Trans people, even though all of their content is emotionally charged reactionary content that’s mostly seen in conservative spaces, and to make it worse, the content they make spreads harmful misinformation about marginalized communities.

Patricia Hill Collins’ “The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought” sums up this violent separation of understanding and advocating for your own community in spaces of knowledge and discussion. I highly recommend reading her paper, because while she focuses on the self-knowledge of Black woman, a LOT of what she speaks about can be applied to other marginalized groups. BIPOC in fields of academia and discourse are forced to produce thought and knowledge under a system that advocates for knowledge by and for the dominant group (White/cis/het/abled-bodied/etc), therefore, when many marginalized people enter academic spaces with the goal of studying their community, they’re forced to separate themselves from their community to “reduce bias”, reduce the radicalization of their thought so as not to provoke the established dominant group’s structure of knowledge and thought, and also reducing the radicalization of their knowledge in order to even get published/funding. Collins writes it here best: “Since researchers have widely differing values, experiences, and emotions, genuine science is thought to be unattainable unless all human characteristics except rationality are eliminated from the research process”, and here “Emotion indicates that a speaker believes in the validity of an argument. Consider Ntozake Shange’s description of one of the goals of her work: ‘Our [Western] society allows people to be absolutely neurotic and totally out of touch with their feelings and everyone else’s feelings, and yet be very respectable. This, to me, is a travesty. . . I’m trying to change the idea of seeing emotions and intellect as distant faculties’.”

Transmedicalism is rooted in the idea that there is a sort of irrationality related to being trans. That there MUST be a logical reason for the way someone’s gender is the way it is, and if it is not the way transmedicalism dictates it should be, then it is wrong. Gender in itself is inherently irrational, it is a social construct upheld by white supremacy, the patriarchy, and colonization. Nothing about gender makes sense, we have all been socialized to believe it should be this way due to Western society pushing these ideals of what a man and a woman should be. Even globally you cannot find the exact same ideals or manurisms that we typically associate with men and women in the West.

Transmedicalism serves a purpose, and that is to take something that is as confusing and weird of questioning your gender and being transgender and reduce it down to something understandable. This is why you see the common experience of younger trans people or trans people who are just starting transitioning to fall into the transmed blackhole. The truth is, personal experiences with gender, with life, with society, with the self are all credible. Feelings and emotions DO have their place in academia and in life, and the idea that they don’t just contributes to the violent idea that we do not belong in these spaces of study. We are taught that our identities must be accommodated to the dominant culture, because if we truly let trans people exist as freely as we should, it would cause the dominant group’s power to begin to crumble. It’s also important to mention that even if feelings were disregarded when it comes to letting trans expression be free, trans people have existed for CENTURIES in nearly ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD and have been documented throughout history with complex gender structures, expression, and spiritual values (Two-Spirit, los Muxes, etc). History in itself is a fact, and by disregarding the historical identity of trans folks by assuming dysphoria is a byproduct of transness when it actually is a byproduct of colonization is further colonizing trans identities.

As trans people, we simply do not owe anyone an explanation for why we exist and why we do the things we do or why we express ourselves a certain why and why we use these words to describe our experience, etc and etc. Your experience is credible. Your feelings are credible. Your transness is real, and somebody else’s transness will never take away from your own. You do not owe cis people validation, you do not need to make your transness palatable to cis people, and you are not an embarrassment to the trans community for expressing your gender in a way transmeds do not understand. You are not the reason why transphobia exists, your transness is not ugly, weird, unnatural....

Your transness is your own, and that is what makes it wonderful. To transmeds: Kill the colonizer in your brain.

[eelsfeelgross]

Conclusions: Trans Activism v. Radical Feminism, a first-hand account

This is current stance after a lot of direct investigation on both radfems online and trans activists online. No group is judged based on the observations, rhetoric, or propaganda of any outside group, but from my own first-hand observations in combination with objective knowable facts such as actions known to be committed in public record by the likes of criminals or celebrities. However, the bulk of this is based on what I have seen, what I know to be true because it’s been done before my own eyes. While my conclusion may lack information on the more nitpicked aspects of things, I believe their overall impressions still hold true with the amount of experience I’ve had. Keep in mind: this is not my only account. I have dipped into the radfem community before, each time from a different perspective, at a different time, and with open eyes ready to receive whatever I was given. The same is true of the trans community.

Trans Activism

I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the trans community from within. I am not relying on critics of the trans ideology to tell me any of this, though they often echo the same concerns and observations.

The trans community has a serious problem with misogyny, homophobia, and sex denial. They employ magical thinking and emotional pleas to justify their conclusions and commit to arguments of definition that are ultimately lacking substance. However, while lacking rational, they are abundant with emotional reasoning and can be incredibly powerful rhetorical tools in convincing others to believe them without the necessary evidence of anything claimed.

This is especially prevalent when discussing sexual biology and sexual orientation. They consider self-harm to be the fault of other people, even in adults, and use this as a manipulation tactic to make it seem as if they’re being killed at higher rates than their general demographics. This plays hand in hand with the appropriation of statistics around things like racial violence or violence against sex workers to make it appear trans people, particularly white heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex) trans women from the middle class of Amerca who aren’t victims of prostitution, are under much more persecution than their lived experiences actually reflects.

This has grown into a political ideology not dissimilar to a religion, but without the usual trappings we associate with a religious group. It requires blind faith in the concept of gender and the “life saving” virtues of expensive hormone treatments and plastic surgeries without proper regard for the risks and consequences of these procedures. Challenging the dogma or asking critical questions is considered a sin itself, even when done with excessive caution for other’s feelings. Violence towards known dissenting groups is considered not just ok, but admirable. Expressions of this desire for violence against the out-group is seen as virtuous to the point that doing it too much will be taken as virtue signalling rather than a sign of deep-seeded anger issues as it would for any other situation. Self-identity is their belief system, and public shame are their tools of punishment to control those within the belief system. Due to sex denial, females suffer especially in this paradigm no matter how they identify or what presentations they choose.

However,

Radical Feminism

Once again, I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the radfem community from within. I am not relying on critics of the radical feminist ideology to tell me any of this, though they may echo similar observations.

Radical feminism, as it exists today in action and not in theories from the 1990s, has a huge problem with transphobia, homophobia, and racism. The focus has shifted almost entirely from protecting women to attacking trans women, understandable on some level but counter-productive to all but the individual ego. There is a preoccupation with what women are “allowed” to do, rather than whether their actions and the consequences of those actions actually benefit the cause of anti-sexism. People feel entitled to be nasty, hurtful and even downright transphobic and homophobic if it means hurting their “enemies” somehow. I’m not sure if they fail to see the big picture or have just given up on caring, but it makes all their pleas for compassion and an end to the trans community’s homophobia seem pretty disingenuous.

This focus on “women deserve more as reparations”, when self-applied to the individual, does nothing to combat sexism as these self serving actions often do little to stop sexism and everything to benefit the individual currently existing within a sexist system. It totally ignores the vital role women play in perpetrating sexism through the generations, from mother to daughter or sister or sister or peer to peer through an intricate web of social pressures.Its not totally ignored mind you, but it is conveniently unaddressed whenever addressing it would prevent them from acting aggressive and toxic toward someone else. However others in the community who aren’t personally benefitting from this at the time will notice, thus leading to endless pointless arguments as the egos clash.

This hypocrisy undermines all attempts at broadening their reach to a new generation of women. Similarly, this toxic attitude undermines all opportunity for organization and real activism which requires a certain level of tolerance and the ability to give basic respect to those you don’t like or agree with. All those who do not tolerate such behavior will simply assume radical feminism must be a hate movement because all they see is vitriol and toxicity, no matter how justified the perpetrator feels about it or the underlying motivators. They will not take the time to read theory because they’ve already seen the practice and they have the sense to know it’s bad. Then when these newcomers see this bad behavior for what it is, they’re belittled or deprived of their agency for their decision to turn away from your movement, called things like “handmaidens” and accused of being either selfishly misogynistic or plainly brainwashed, driving them ever further away. The refusal to take responsibility for your own image and the consequences of your behavior under some false impression of ideological purity justifying it only further cements this takeaway outsiders have.

The most egregious example that comes to mind is the “queers” issue. Radfems are adamant about queer being slur, and they’re right. I myself grew up having queer flung at me by violent straight men and I’m not even that old. I feel no joy in the sanitation and generalization of the term. That is not reclamation, that is erasure and appropriation of pain. Most radfems agree on this wholeheartedly. That is, until you decide to spell it “kweer” and start flinging it at trans people who fit a particular homophobic stereotype: strange appearances, unorthodox body modifications like piercing and colored hair, unwashed, perverted to the point of being predatory, self important children who are just playing pretend to be different. All these qualities call back to the stereotype of queers, gays, and it is deeply intrenched in homophobia going back generations. And yet, while radfems would condemn the trans community for the appropriation of queer and its homophobic implications, they have no problem employing it as a slur when it suits their own toxic impulses.

Some even seem to believe that misspelling the word or being homosexual themselves absolves this. It does not. Anybody without the blinders of radfem internal rhetoric will quickly see past this nonsense. If the trans community came back and started calling radfems “diques” and associating the term with severely lesbophobic stereotypes like being unwashed or too ugly to get a man or any of the other countless stereotypes around the slur “dyke”, radfems would be rightly livid. Making a point to only target straight radfems with this insult would not make it any different. But addressing these kinds of hypocritical positions has become a taboo within the radfem community, yet another spark to relight the fires of senseless infighting.

This is the worst example I’ve personally seen, but it is not the only one. There’s also the tendency for radfems, desperate for others who are gender critical to connect with, to make alliances with right wing conservatives despite their racism and homophobia simply because they’re also transphobic but for completely different reasons. And also a tendency to be much more forgiving of misogyny coming from these new “allies” that will glady destroy you too once trans people are out of the way. But I will not labor my point any further by bringing up everything all at once. Regardless, for those who harp on and on about getting to the root of the problem, the moment anyone suggests you try getting to the root of your own problems, taking accountability and making changes, all that self-righteous posturing seems to go out the window just like it does in the trans community. You’ve become a reflection of what you hate in an attempt to combat it, and it will be the death of your movement if you don’t make a serious effort to reform these behaviors and distance yourself from those who employ these forms of rhetoric.

It’s a harsh fact, but the world at large does not care what you deserve, just like sexual biology doesn’t care about your personal feelings about your sex. It just doesn’t. That’s why patriarchy exists in the first place. It is your job as a social movement to use your words and actions to convince them to care. That is what the trans community has managed to do successfully, in my opinion often for the wrong reasons but successfully nonetheless, but such things do not stroke the ego of the individual radfem and therefore simply doesn’t happen in an organized, ideology-wide manner. Small islands of rational stand isolated in a sea of this pointless vitriol, and alone they are hopeless against the attacks against radical feminism born from the trans community and their sex denial that leads to egregious misogyny.

Conclusion

When it comes to the underlying theory, the ideological core, I find that radical feminism has the best chance of growing to become a social movement for genuinely good change in the world, particularly for women and women-loving-women specifically. Trans ideology, in my opinion, is inherently flawed as its core tenants require faith in what one cannot prove and a rejection of science that doesn’t support said faith.

Trans ideology as it exists in 2020 is more akin to religion than science, and has proven its capability to do harm through its use of magical thinking and distorted points of view that constantly shift and change to make space for the core trans ideology to be “correct”. Core ideas such as: sex is either fake or less relevant than gender, that gender is an objective fact of the human psyche, that others failing to fix your own poor mental health are responsible for your harm or death, that transition is always a good idea if someone wants it and no gatekeeping should be performed regarding using plastic surgery to treat mental discomforts, and so on. Remove all these ideas, and the whole thing falls apart.

Meanwhile, removing the toxicity of the radfem community as it exists now will not destroy its underlying core beliefs. Its just that the current people who advertise themselves as radfems and take up that mantle do not actually follow the core ideology of their own movement when it doesn’t benefit them. It has been infiltrated and run amok with bad faith actors who abuse the movement for personal gain, whether they are aware of it or not. And with their combination of being excessively vocal and lacking any shame for their misdeeds, more and more are drawn into their toxic games to the point that the ones who actually speak to the spirit of the core theory get drowned out or attacked to the point none will associate with them openly. The ones who actually know the theory and practice it end up effectively shunned from a community that widely hasn’t even read the theory and thinks hating trans people and thinking pussy = superior makes them a radfem. And thus, by allowing this, that is what radical feminism has become in practice. No amount of appealing to that core philosophy will matter if the actual people don’t apply that theory properly.

So my conclusion? Radical feminism has the greatest potential for good, but it is grossly unrealized and will remain that way without radical internal changes. However, if anyone is equipped to get to the root of the problem and make a radical change it should be radfems. Or at least, the good faith radfems who aren’t abusing the movement, of which I’m convinced have become the minority of radfems in the present day. Perhaps it is time for feminism to once again branch off, not to try returning to the 2nd wave but to set the stage for a true 4th wave as many have talked about. A 4th wave that is based on the foundations set by 2nd wave feminist thinkers, but forward thinking, self-critiquing, and not limited by the hangups of the last wave. I guess only time will tell what radfems value more: their egos in attachment to the idea of identifying as a radfem, or the effective dis-empowerment of patriarchy through organized effort at the expense of satisfying your personal vendettas against all men.

[star-anise]

do you have any sources on the claims you made? im always willing to change my stance if you have legitimate backing for it haha

So first, I’m sorry for blowing up at you the way that I did. I’m not proud that I reacted in such a kneejerk, aggressive fashion. Thank you for being open to hearing what I have to say. I’m sorry for mistaking you for a TERF, and I’m sorry my response has caused other people to direct their own hostility towards you.

So, here’s the thing. “You can’t call bi women femmes” is pretty intrinsically a radfem thing to say, and I am deeply opposed to letting radfems tell me what to do. I’m trying to write this during a weekend packed with childcare and work. I’ll try to hit all the high notes.

The one thing I am having trouble finding is the longass post I talked about in my reply, that was a history of butch/femme relationships in lesbian bars, which had frequent biphobic asides and talked about “the lesbophobic myth of the bi-rejecting lesbian”; the friend who reblogged it without reading it thoroughly has deleted it, and I can’t find it on any of the tags she remembers looking at around that time. If anyone can find it, I’ll put up a link.

As far as possible, I’m linking to really widely accessible sources, because you shouldn’t intrinsically trust a random post on Tumblr as secret privileged knowledge. People have talked about this at length in reputable publications that your local library either has, or can get through interlibrary loan; you can look up any of the people here, read their work, and decide for yourself. This is a narrative of perspectives, and while I obviously have a perspective, many people disagree with me. At the end of the day, the only reason I need for calling bi women femmes is that You Are Not The Boss Of Me. There is no centralized authority on LGBT+ word usage, nor do I think there should be. Hopefully this post will give you a better sense of what the arguments are, and how to evaluate peoples’ claims in the future.

I looked up “butch” and “femme” with my library’s subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary because that’s where you find the most evidence of etymology and early use, and found:

“Femme” is the French word for “woman”.  It’s been a loanword in English for about 200 years, and in the late 19th century in America it was just a slangy word for “women”, as in, “There were lots of femmes there for the boys to dance with”

“Butch” has been used in American English to mean a tough, masculine man since the late 19th century; in the 1930s and 1940s it came to apply to a short masculine haircut, and shortly thereafter, a woman who wore such a haircut. It’s still used as a nickname for masculine cis guys–my godfather’s name is Martin, but his family calls him Butch. By the 1960s in Britain, “butch” was slang for the penetrating partner of a pair of gay men.

Butch/femme as a dichotomy for women arose specifically in the American lesbian bar scene around, enh, about the 1940s, to enh, about the 1960s. Closet-keys has a pretty extensive butch/femme history reader. This scene was predominantly working-class women, and many spaces in it were predominantly for women of colour. This was a time when “lesbian” literally meant anyone who identified as a woman, and who was sexually or romantically interested in other women. A lot of the women in these spaces were closeted in the rest of their lives, and outside of their safe spaces, they had to dress normatively, were financially dependent on husbands, etc. Both modern lesbians, and modern bisexual women, can see themselves represented in this historical period.

These spaces cross-pollinated heavily with ball culture and drag culture, and were largely about working-class POC creating spaces where they could explore different gender expressions, gender as a construct and a performance, and engage in a variety of relationships. Butch/femme was a binary, but it worked as well as most binaries to do with sex and gender do, which is to say, it broke down a lot, despite the best efforts of people to enforce it. It became used by people of many different genders and orientations whose common denominator was the need for safety and discretion. “Butch” and “femme” were words with meanings, not owners.

Lesbianism as distinct from bisexuality comes from the second wave of feminism, which began in, enh, the 1960s, until about, enh, maybe the 1980s, maybe never by the way Tumblr is going. “Radical” feminism means not just that this is a new and more exciting form of feminism compared to the early 20th century suffrage movement; as one self-identified radfem professor of mine liked to tell us every single lecture, it shares an etymology with the word “root”, meaning that sex discrimination is at the root of all oppression.

Radical feminism blossomed among college-educated women, which also meant, predominantly white, middle- or upper-class women whose first sexual encounters with women happened at elite all-girls schools or universities. Most of these women broke open the field of “women’s studies” and the leading lights of radical feminism often achieved careers as prominent scholars and tenured professors.

Radical feminism established itself as counter to “The Patriarchy”, and one of the things many early radfems believed was, all men were the enemy. All men perpetuated patriarchy and were damaging to women. So the logical decision was for women to withdraw from men in all manner and circumstances–financially, legally, politically, socially, and sexually. “Political lesbianism” wasn’t united by its sexual desire for women; many of its members were asexual, or heterosexual women who decided to live celibate lives. This was because associating with men in any form was essentially aiding and abetting the enemy.

Look, I’ll just literally quote Wikipedia quoting an influential early lesbian separatist/radical feminist commune: “The Furies recommended that Lesbian Separatists relate “only (with) women who cut their ties to male privilege” and suggest that “as long as women still benefit from heterosexuality, receive its privileges and security, they will at some point have to betray their sisters, especially Lesbian sisters who do not receive those benefits”“

This cross-pollinated with the average experience of WLW undergraduates, who were attending school at a time when women weren’t expected to have academic careers; college for women was primarily seen as a place to meet eligible men to eventually marry. So there were definitely women who had relationships with other women, but then, partly due to the pressure of economic reality and heteronormativity, married men. This led to the phrase LUG, or “lesbian until graduation”, which is the kind of thing that still got flung at me in the 00s as an openly bisexual undergrad. Calling someone a LUG was basically an invitation to fight.

The assumption was that women who marry men when they’re 22, or women who don’t stay in the feminist academic sphere, end up betraying their ideals and failing to have solidarity with their sisters. Which seriously erases the many contributions of bi, het, and ace women to feminism and queer liberation. For one, I want to point to Brenda Howard, the bisexual woman who worked to turn Pride from the spontaneous riots in 1969 to the nationwide organized protests and parades that began in 1970 and continue to this day. She spent the majority of her life to a male partner, but that didn’t diminish her contribution to the LGBT+ community.

Lesbian separatists, and radical feminists, hated Butch/Femme terminology. They felt it was a replication of unnecessarily heteronormative ideals. Butch/femme existed in an LGBT+ context, where gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people understood themselves to have more in common with each other than with, say, cis feminists who just hated men more than they loved women. 

The other main stream of feminist thought at the time was Liberal Feminism, which was like, “What if we can change society without totally rejecting men?” and had prominent figures like Gloria Steinem, who ran Ms magazine. Even today, you’ll hear radfems railing against “libfems” and I’m like, my good women, liberal feminism got replaced thirty years ago. Please update your internal schema of “the enemy”

Lesbian separatism was… plagued by infighting. To maintain a “woman-only” space, they had to kick out trans women (thus, TERFs), women who slept with men (thus, biphobia), women who enjoyed kinky sex or pornography or engaged in sex work (thus, SWERFS) and they really struggled to raise their male children in a way that was… um… anti-oppressive. (I’m biased; I know people who were raised in lesbian separatist communes and did not have great childhoods.) At the same time, they had other members they very much wanted to keep, even though their behaviour deviated from the expected program, so you ended up with spectacles like Andrea Dworkin self-identifying as a lesbian despite being deeply in love with and married to a self-identified gay man for twenty years, despite beng famous for the theory that no woman could ever have consensual sex with a man, because all she could ever do was acquiesce to her own rape.

There’s a reason radical feminism stopped being a major part of the public discourse, and also a reason why it survives today: While its proponents became increasingly obsolete, they were respected scholars and tenured university professors. This meant people like Camille Paglia and Mary Daly, despite their transphobia and racism, were considered important people to read and guaranteed jobs educating young people who had probably just moved into a space where they could meet other LGBT people for the very first time. So a lot of modern LGBT people (including me) were educated by radical feminist professors or assigned radical feminist books to read in class.

The person I want to point to as a great exemplar is Alison Bechdel, a white woman who discovered she was a lesbian in college, was educated in the second-wave feminist tradition, but also identified as a butch and made art about the butch/femme dichotomy’s persistence and fluidity. You can see part of that tension in her comic; she knows the official lesbian establishment frowns on butch/femme divisions, but it’s relevant to her lived experience.

What actually replaced radical feminism was not liberal feminism, but intersectional feminism and the “Third Wave”. Black radical feminists, like Audre Lorde, bell hooks, and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, pointed out that many white radical feminists were ignoring race as a possible cause of oppression, and failing to notice how their experiences differed from Black womens’. Which led to a proliferation of feminists talking about other oppressions they faced: Disabled feminists, Latina feminists, queer feminists, working-class feminists. It became clear that even if you eliminated the gender binary from society, there was still a lot of bad shit that you had to unlearn–and also, a lot of oppression that still happened in lesbian separatist spaces.

I’ve talked before about how working in women-only second-wave spaces really destroyed my faith in them and reinforced my belief in intersectional feminism

Meanwhile, back in the broader queer community, “queer” stuck as a label because how people identified was really fluid. Part of it is that you learn by experience, and sometimes the only way to know if something works for you is to try it out, and part of it is that, as society changed, a lot more people became able to take on new identities without as much fear. So for example, you have people like Pat Califia, who identified as a lesbian in the 70s and 80s, found far more in common with gay leather daddies than sex-negative lesbians, and these days identifies as a bisexual trans man.

Another reason radical feminists hate the word “queer”, by the way, is queer theory, which wants to go beyond the concept of men oppressing women, or straights oppressing gays, but to question this entire system we’ve built, of sex, and gender, and orientation. It talks about “queering” things to mean “to deviate from heteronormativity” more than “to be homosexual”. A man who is married to a woman, who stays at home and raises their children while she works, is viewed as “queer” inasmuch as he deviates from heteronormativity, and is discriminated against for it.

So, I love queer theory, but I will agree that it can be infuriating to hear somebody say that as a single (cis het) man he is “queer” in the same way being a trans lesbian of colour is “queer”, and get very upset and precious about being told they’re not actually the same thing. I think that actually, “queer as a slur” originated as the kind of thing you want to scream when listening to too much academic bloviating, like, “This is a slur! Don’t reclaim it if it didn’t originally apply to you! It’s like poor white people trying to call themselves the n-word!” so you should make sure you are speaking about a group actually discriminated against before calling them “queer”. On the other hand, queer theory is where the theory of “toxic masculinity” came from and we realized that we don’t have to eliminate all men from the universe to reduce gender violence; if we actually pay attention to the pressures that make men so shitty, we can reduce or reverse-engineer them and encourage them to be better, less sexist, men.

But since radfems and queer theorists are basically mortal enemies in academia, radical feminists quite welcomed the “queer as a slur” phenomenon as a way to silence and exclude people they wanted silenced and excluded, because frankly until that came along they’ve been losing the culture wars.

This is kind of bad news for lesbians who just want to float off to a happy land of only loving women and not getting sexually harrassed by men. As it turns out, you can’t just turn on your lesbianism and opt out of living in society. Society will follow you wherever you go. If you want to end men saying gross things to lesbians, you can’t just defend lesbianism as meaning “don’t hit on me”; you have to end men saying gross things to all women, including bi and other queer women.  And if you do want a lesbian-only space, you either have to accept that you will have to exclude and discriminate against some people, including members of your community whose identities or partners change in the future, or accept that the cost of not being a TERF and a biphobe is putting up with people in your space whose desires don’t always resemble yours.

Good god, this got extensive and I’ve been writing for two hours.

So here’s the other thing.

My girlfriend is a femme bi woman. She’s married to a man.

She’s also married to two women.

And dating a man.

And dating me (a woman).

When you throw monogamy out the window, it becomes EVEN MORE obvious that “being married to a man” does not exclude a woman from participation in the queer community as a queer woman, a woman whose presentation is relevant in WLW contexts. Like, this woman is in more relationships with women at the moment than some lesbians on this site have been in for their entire lives.

You can start out with really clear-cut ideas about “THIS is what my life is gonna be like” but then your best friend’s sexual orientation changes, or your lover starts to transition, and things in real life are so much messier than they look when you’re planning your future. It’s easy to be cruel, exclusionary, or dismissive to people you don’t know; it’s a lot harder when it’s people you have real relationships with.

And my married-to-a-man girlfriend? Uses “butch” and “femme” for reasons very relevant to her queerness and often fairly unique to femme bi women, like, “I was out with my husband and looking pretty femme, so I guess they didn’t clock me as a queer” or “I was the least butch person there, so they didn’t expect me to be the only one who uses power tools.” Being a femme bi woman is a lot about invisibility, which is worth talking about as a queer experience instead of being assumed to exclude us from the queer community.

[thesilverheroineproject]

Kate Zambreno’s Heroines is a hard book to read. Every page is a reckoning with the unbearable phallocentrism of Writing as An Institution, and for the reader who’s also a marginalised, struggling writer and/or female, it’s a memory trigger. There’s a thread running through Heroines that memory-work is political. That the literary canon is “a memory campaign that verges on propaganda, that the books remembered are the only ones worth reading.” It’s impossible to review the book dispassionately. Zambreno’s style invites personal recollection; it’s affecting, and in order to get what she’s doing with this book one has to be able to feel it.

Heroines is part literary criticism, part literary history, part memoir, part feminist polemic. In its form and in its writing, Heroines is what the author is trying to rescue and reclaim: to use Zambreno’s favourite words, it's messy, girly, and excessive. It’s also sharp, finely-structured, and meticulously (voraciously) researched. Heroines grew out of Zambreno’s blog, Frances Farmer is My Sister, or more precisely, the blog grew out of ideas for a book. In an interview with The Rumpus, Zambreno talks about her earlier plans to write a fictionalised notebook titled “Mad Wife”—and is comprised of many things, but is most clearly made up of equal parts rage and reflection.

Zambreno began blogging after her partner took up a university job in Akron, Ohio, and the early sections of Heroines record much of what Zambreno finds stultifying and destabilising about being The Wife in a new place: “I have become used to wearing, it seems, the constant pose of the foreigner.” Like Helene Cixous in “Coming to Writing”, Zambreno begins to form an invisible community—communing with the women writers and the “mad wives of modernism”—a community borne out of invention, yes, but also need. The brutal honesty with which Zambreno recognises her particular condition—“I am realising you become a wife, despite the mutual attempt at an egalitarian partnership, once you agree to move for him”—is both disruptive and comforting to the reader. Here is a truth alongside other truths and someone is finally speaking it, but here is the truth and we must now face it.

At the end of reading Heroines, I had accumulated about 17 pages of handwritten notes. Heroines brought into clear view for me names that had only circulated vaguely around my head from an undergraduate survey course in Modernism in Literature. Perhaps my professors had mentioned Zelda Fitzgerald and Vivien(ne) Eliot’s writing, but then why didn’t I remember any of it? The result is that I read the early sections of Heroines with a kind of numb shock. As Maggie Nelson writes in her blurb for the book, “if you didn’t know much [about the “wives” of modernism], your mouth will fall open in enraged amazement.” Vivien(ne) and Tom’s troubled and troubling marriage; Vivien(ne)’s writing cast aside, T.S. Eliot the writer winning the Nobel Prize a year after her death—after he left her, after he hid in bathrooms allowing his secretaries to calm his “mad” wife, after using her lines, her typing services, and disregarding her worth as her writer. Vivien(ne) with her female maladies, staining the bedsheet red. Zambreno tells us of what Vivien(ne)’s brother said to Michael Hastings, the British playwright who wrote Tom & Viv: “Viv’s sanitary towels always put a man off.”

Dear reader, I read that and saw red.

These “wives” of modernism didn’t just suffer at the hands of various men, including their husbands, but were also negated or ignored, made invisible or an object of derision by other women, particularly women writers like Virginia Woolf who had to slay their own demons both in life and on the page. Woolf, who so memorably and wittily describes Vivien(ne) as “this bag of ferrets … Tom wears around his neck”. Zambreno writes: “I think of Viv as the mad double Virginia both identifies with and wants to disassociate herself from.” And this is perhaps also something that infuses Elizabeth Hardwick’s critical writings of other women writers.

Hardwick’s essay on Zelda Fitzgerald in Seduction and Betrayal is curiously committed to omitting the recognition of gender and patriarchal norms; she talks of Zelda and Scott as being twins, and how “only one of the twins is the real artist”, seemingly complacent in her acceptance of the accepted notion that F. Scott Fitzgerald was the real artist while his wife was merely mildly talented, but more of a dilettante. It seems like a neverending senseless loop, this question of artistry, genius, and legitimacy: only a real artist like F. Scott Fitzgerald would be acclaimed; thus, because F. Scott is acclaimed, he is the real artist. Nowhere in this interrogation does Hardwick devote much attention to how phallocentrism structures the creative output of men and women, and how it structures how those works are received. As Zambreno points out, even while Hardwick seems sympathetic to Zelda’s situation, she seems keen to distance herself from that kind of “mess”, to render a particular form of female experience as sick, perhaps, and dysfunctional, and therefore something to be pitied but not common or predictable or in any way relatable.

But then I think of Linda Wagner-Martin’s biography of Zelda, and how she writes that “Zelda’s crack-up gave [Scott] both alibi and cover.” If men’s wives are officially mad—diagnosis confirms it!—then men are never to blame. Badly-behaving, outright misogynist husbands can be forgiven, excused, comforted, and indulged. But as Zambreno points out through all her meticulous research of these ignored and sidelined women, all Zelda wanted to do was whatever she needed to do at the time: write, using her own life—herself—as the material. This made the Real Writer of the marriage, the husband, really, really angry. Scott tells Zelda, “You were going crazy and calling it genius.” Hardwick seems to buy this assessment in her essay. Zambreno explains: “In a way, Hardwick’s essay reads as an elaborate defense of the supreme rights of (male) artist.” Wagner-Martin, in her biography: “The irony of the Scott-Zelda relationship from the start, however, was that Scott regularly usurped Zelda’s story.”

Heroines is thus also a meditation on writing and the act of creation: whose lives count as “material”, and who gets to use and shape the material into the story? Whose hand guides the words? When it’s women who are mining their own lives for both material and meaning, it’s all-too easily seen as easy, lazy, unreflective, unworthy work. “The self-portrait, as written by a woman, is read as somehow dangerous and indulgent,” Zambreno writes, and asks, “Why is self-expression, the relentless self-portrait, not a potentially legitimate form of art?” For me, these questions bring up attendant questions about writing and accountability, about how the need to create can be an almost-parasitical hunger that feeds on people’s lives, even (or perhaps especially) their own.

Zambreno takes exception to Toril Moi’s aversion to a certain type of women’s confessional writing in Sexual/Textual Politics, where Moi dismisses it as a kind of “narcisstic delving into one’s own self”. Yet these are questions that trouble me, and I can’t oppose them as clearly as Zambreno does, to see all objection to narcissism (or even the use of the term narcissism) as a form of censorship that attempts to silence women’s writing. Clearly the fact of sexism structures how writing and publishing operate as an institution, and Zambreno certainly makes a fine case about just how openly and covertly patriarchy attempts to silence women’s voices that do not fit its image of “good woman”.

But I also wonder about the dangers of looking inward, the idea of the self that might harden and become its own kind of hegemony. The danger when one starts to believe that one’s condition doesn’t reveal a particular human condition, but is the human condition. Can looking inward feed upon itself so thoroughly that it, does, in fact, become a form of narcissism? Where you’re so attuned to your own pain that you’re unable to recognise the pain of others, or worse, imagine that your pain is the pain of others?

I recognise that a big part of Zambreno’s project in Heroines is its effort of reclamation: as such, she tells the stories of the neglected, abandoned, derided writers and writer-wives of literary history in order to project a different, erased history. As such, her perspective is clear and focus is sharp: these women are rescued from formerly patriarchal narratives and given new forms of being in the pages of Heroines. Still, all of these women are white, and most of them come from a background with roots in bourgeois respectability, and so I recognise that while another story is being told, the whole story is, perhaps, still unclear.

Heroines is a record of how these women were wronged, and it’s a necessary intervention into both literary history and criticism, but we don’t hear anything about how these women may have used their class and social position and their whiteness in order to get ahead, how they may have exploited other people, people who were economically, politically, and socially positioned as middle and upper class white women’s lesser others. (I think of Toni Morrison’s 1989 interview in Time magazine, quoted in Nina Power’s One Dimensional Woman, where Morrison talks about the old-boys network and the “shared bounty of class.” Although many of the women writers Zambreno writes about were often deprived of independent income, and some even fell into poverty, I still wonder about the class networks and social connections that may have worked in their favour, even when patriarchy stood in the way.)

As such, these women tend to come off uniformly victimised, wholly victims of patriarchy and nothing else. And while I recognise Zambreno’s need to record instances of “girl-on-girl” crime, it also makes me somewhat uncomfortable—as though all writing by women, then, is somehow necessarily above criticism. This is a grey and complex area, obviously, but I can’t help but wonder if this lets women writers off the hook a little too easily. Criticism from other women critics can often stem from internalised sexism, no doubt, but other forms of criticism take to task certain forms of confessional writing by women writers because it stays silent on issues of race, class, and sexuality, or worse, considers those issues unimportant in relation to one’s own work. Zambreno writes:

"This idea that one must control oneself and stop being so FULL of self remains a dominating theory around mental illness, and, perhaps tellingly, around other patriarchal laws and narratives, including the ones governing and disciplining literature."

This is certainly true, but I would rather not see it as an either/or option: either write, FULL of self, or suppress the self and suffer. The problem of writing the self is that the self can become all-encompassing, preventing the writer from hearing the stories of others. Being full of self can work as a form of self-care and self-preservation, and this is necessary, but sometimes the self needs to be shattered open into recognising and accepting other possibilities. So there is a danger, perhaps, in not interrogating statements like “The subaltern condition of being a literary wife,” when literary wives may at least get a stab at writing and giving voice to their thoughts on the page, while the true subaltern (may speak, write, shout, scream) and remain unheard by ears that are trained only to listen to the voice of the self or voices that sound similar to the self. There is a form of power in writing, despite how it’s received—and perhaps this is a power that is all too conveniently ignored by those of us who do write.

And Zambreno does exhort her girl readers/writers to write—“to write and refuse erasure while we’re living at least”—and is ecstatic about the proliferation of Tumblrs, blogs, and Livejournals by girls and young women that are at turns “emo, promiscuous, gorgeous, dizzying, jarring, irreverent, cinephilic, consumed, consuming, wanting, wiity, violent, self-loathing or self-doubting”, to quote just some of her adjectives, I’m also wondering about the attendant tyranny of these forms of social media and blog platforms that demand and require the personal. If we’re writing on the internet we’re using some if not most of this technology, and all of us are daily exhorted to share, divulge, like, favourite, promote, or take a gpoy or a selfie.

While it’s true that many subvert the rules of engagement on social media and blog platforms—by posting deliberately unappealing selfies, for example, or selfies of the ungroomed self—the internet is also run by corporations who try to exploit, in increasingly covert and “creative” ways, users’ personal information. And the young, pretty, wayward girl is now profitable data in a still (still!) sexist society. So much of girls’ writing online, like in the case of Marie Calloway, is (still!) used against them. One thinks about the problem of encouraging girls to write and also to be responsible and accountable to themselves and to each other; the problem of how to use oneself and one’s loved ones as material or content with care in a culture of increased surveillance, especially when the technology we use for writing and performing is also the technology that enables the surveillance and scrutiny.

In her earlier works of fiction O Fallen Angel and Green Girl, Zambreno gave us devastating yet finely-wrought portraits of girls in distress—portraits of acute suffering, where the girl in question (Maggie in O Fallen Angel, Ruth in Green Girl) is unable to consider the world outside of her because she is, in some ways, trapped inside. This, I think, is a testament to Zambreno’s intelligence and artistry—and a cultivated sense of empathy—and also a searing portrait of the fractious and unstable female self and its relation to mental illness. An important theme in Heroines is the institutionalisation and medicalisation of women—how the same misogyny that brings about or catalyses the splits in self in the female subject is the same misogyny that is applied to treat and “cure” it, and it is in these passages that Zambreno is particularly acute, sensitive, and moving. As she points out, language is itself complicit: “I’ve always found the language of borderline personality diagnosis, a label assigned to women almost entirely, compelling in that it’s an identity disorder which is defined almost exclusively by not actually having an identity.” Zambreno writes about always having had a “tremendous fear of being institutionalised”—and relates this to how works and canonised:

"(She was institutionalized, as Mad Woman, as Bad Wife, and he was institutionalized, as the Great American Author.)"

Institutionalisation is also a memory campaign, where the man-artist is generalised and the woman-artist individualised. I’d like to think of Heroines as a cure for this wilful, institutionalised amnesia. It’s a book that has lodged itself in my mind and likely to stay there for a long time, despite, or maybe even because of some of my problems with certain sections of the book. It seems fitting to let Zambreno have the last word:

"Fuck the canon. Fuck the boys with their big books."

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

What is Green Anarchy?

Bridging both time and work, the following is an article that was featured in one of Green Anarchy magazine’s “Back to Basics” primers. We see this as a starting point for further exploration and discussion. The topics covered are central to a green anarchist critique or perspective. This is not an exhaustive list, but rather the beginnings of what we hope will be an ongoing conversation – one to be further expanded, updated, and explored in subsequent issues of Black Seed.

This primer is not meant to be the “defining principles” for a green anarchist “movement”, nor an anti-civilization manifesto. It is a look at some of the basic ideas and concepts that collective members share with each other, and with others who identify as green anarchists. We understand and celebrate the need to keep our visions and strategies open, and always welcome discussion. We feel that every aspect of what we think and who we are constantly needs to be challenged and remain flexible if we are to grow. We are not interested in developing a new ideology, nor perpetuating a singular world-view. We also understand that not all green anarchists are specifically anti-civilization (but we do have a hard time understanding how one can be against all domination without getting to its roots: civilization itself). At this point, however, most who use the term “green anarchist” do indict civilization and all that comes along with it (domestication, patriarchy, division of labor, technology, production, representation, alienation, objectification, control, the destruction of life, etc). While some would like to speak in terms of direct democracy and urban gardening, we feel it is impossible and undesirable to “green up” civilization and/or make it more “fair”. We feel that it is important to move towards a radically decentralized world, to challenge the logic and mindset of the death-culture, to end all mediation in our lives, and to destroy all the institutions and physical manifestations of this nightmare. We want to become uncivilized. In more general terms, this is the trajectory of green anarchy in thought and practice.

Anarchy vs Anarchism

One qualifier that we feel is important to begin with is the distinction between “anarchy” and “anarchism”. Some will write this off as merely semantics or trivial, but for most post-left and anti-civilization anarchists, this differentiation is important. While anarchism can serve as an important historical reference point from which to draw inspiration and lessons, it has become too systematic, fixed, and ideological…everything anarchy is not. Admittedly, this has less to do with anarchism’s social/political/philosophical orientation, and more to do with those who identify as anarchists. No doubt, many from our anarchist lineage would also be disappointed by this trend to solidify what should always be in flux. The early self-identified anarchists (Proudhon, Bakunin, Berkman, Goldman, Malatesta, and the like) were responding to their specific contexts, with their own specific motivations and desires. Too often, contemporary anarchists see these individuals as representing the boundaries of anarchy, and create a W.W.B.D. [What Would Bakunin Do (or more correctly–Think)] attitude towards anarchy, which is tragic and potentially dangerous. Today, some who identify as “classical” anarchists refuse to accept any effort in previously uncharted territory within anarchism (ie. Primitivism, Post-Leftism, etc) or trends which have often been at odds with the rudimentary workers’ mass movement approach (ie. Individualism, Nihilism, etc). These rigid, dogmatic, and extremely uncreative anarchists have gone so far as to declare that anarchism is a very specific social and economic methodology for organizing the working class. This is obviously an absurd extreme, but such tendencies can be seen in the ideas and projects of many contemporary anarcho-leftists (anarcho-sydicalists, anarcho-communists, platformists, federationists). “Anarchism”, as it stands today, is a far-left ideology, one which we need to get beyond. In contrast, “anarchy” is a formless, fluid, organic experience embracing multi-faceted visions of liberation, both personal and collective, and always open. As anarchists, we are not interested in forming a new framework or structure to live under or within, however “unobtrusive” or “ethical” it claims to be. Anarchists cannot provide another world for others, but we can raise questions and ideas, try to destroy all domination and that which impedes our lives and our dreams, and live directly connected with our desires.

What is Primitivism?

While not all green anarchists specifically identify as “Primitivists”, most acknowledge the significance that the primitivist critique has had on anti-civilization perspectives. Primitivism is simply an anthropological, intellectual, and experiential examination of the origins of civilization and the circumstances that led to this nightmare we currently inhabit. Primitivism recognizes that for most of human history, we lived in face-to-face communities in balance with each other and our surroundings, without formal hierarchies and institutions to mediate and control our lives. Primitivists wish to learn from the dynamics at play in the past and in contemporary gatherer-hunter/primitive societies (those that have existed and currently exist outside of civilization). While some primitivists wish for an immediate and complete return to gatherer-hunter band societies, most primitivists understand that an acknowledgement of what has been successful in the past does not unconditionally determine what will work in the future. The term “Future Primitive,” coined by anarcho-primitivist author John Zerzan, hints that a synthesis of primitive techniques and ideas can be joined with contemporary anarchist concepts and motivations to create healthy, sustainable, and egalitarian decentralized situations. Applied non-ideologically, anarcho-primitivism can be an important tool in the de-civilizing project.

What is Civilization?

Green anarchists tend to view civilization as the logic, institutions, and physical apparatus of domestication, control, and domination. While different individuals and groups prioritize distinct aspects of civilization (ie primitivists typically focus on the question of origins, feminists primarily focus on the roots and manifestations of patriarchy, and insurrectionary anarchists mainly focus on the destruction of contemporary institutions of control), most green anarchists agree that it is the underlying problem or root of oppression, and it needs to be dismantled. The rise of civilization can roughly be described as the shift over the past 10,000 years from an existence within and deeply connected to the web of life, to one separated from and in control of the rest of life. Prior to civilization there generally existed ample leisure time, considerable gender autonomy and equality, a non-destructive approach to the natural world, the absence of organized violence, no mediating or formal institutions, and strong health and robusticity. Civilization inaugurated warfare, the subjugation of women, population growth, drudge work, concepts of property, entrenched hierarchies, and virtually every known disease, to name a few of its devastating derivatives. Civilization begins with and relies on an enforced renunciation of instinctual freedom. It cannot be reformed and is thus our enemy.

Biocentrism vs Anthropocentrism

One way of analyzing the extreme discord between the world-views of primitive and earth-based societies and of civilization, is that of biocentric vs anthropocentric outlooks. Biocentrism is a perspective that centers and connects us to the earth and the complex web of life, while anthropocentrism, the dominant world view of western culture, places our primary focus on human society, to the exclusion of the rest of life. A biocentric view does not reject human society, but does move it out of the status of superiority and puts it into balance with all other life forces. It places a priority on a bioregional outlook, one that is deeply connected to the plants, animals, insects, climate, geographic features, and spirit of the place we inhabit. There is no split between ourselves and our environment, so there can be no objectification or otherness to life. Where separation and objectification are at the base of our ability to dominate and control, interconnectedness is a prerequisite for deep nurturing, care, and understanding. Green anarchy strives to move beyond human-centered ideas and decisions into a humble respect for all life and the dynamics of the ecosystems that sustain us.

A Critique of Symbolic Culture

Another aspect of how we view and relate to the world that can be problematic, in the sense that it separates us from a direct interaction, is our shift towards an almost exclusively symbolic culture. Often the response to this questioning is, “So, you just want to grunt?” Which might be the desire of a few, but typically the critique is a look at the problems inherent with a form of communication and comprehension that relies primarily on symbolic thought at the expense (and even exclusion) of other sensual and unmediated means. The emphasis on the symbolic is a movement from direct experience into mediated experience in the form of language, art, number, time, etc Symbolic culture filters our entire perception through formal and informal symbols. It’s beyond just giving things names, but having an entire relationship to the world that comes through the lens of representation. It is debatable as to whether humans are “hard-wired” for symbolic thought or if it developed as a cultural change or adaptation, but the symbolic mode of expression and understanding is certainly limited and its over-dependence leads to objectification, alienation, and a tunnel-vision of perception. Many green anarchists promote and practice getting in touch with and rekindling dormant or underutilized methods of interaction and cognition, such as touch, smell, and telepathy, as well as experimenting with and developing unique and personal modes of comprehension and expression.

The Domestication of Life

Domestication is the process that civilization uses to indoctrinate and control life according to its logic. These time-tested mechanisms of subordination include: taming, breeding, genetically modifying, schooling, caging, intimidating, coercing, extorting, promising, governing, enslaving, terrorizing, murdering…the list goes on to include almost every civilized social interaction. Their movement and effects can be examined and felt throughout society, enforced through various institutions, rituals, and customs. It is also the process by which previously nomadic human populations shift towards a sedentary or settled existence through agriculture and animal husbandry. This kind of domestication demands a totalitarian relationship with both the land and the plants and animals being domesticated. Whereas in a state of wildness, all life shares and competes for resources, domestication destroys this balance. The domesticated landscape (eg pastoral lands/agricultural fields, and to a lesser degree—horticulture and gardening) necessitates the end of open sharing of the resources that formerly existed; where once “this was everyone’s,” it is now “mine”. In Daniel Quinn’s novel Ishmael, he explains this transformation from the “Leavers” (those who accepted what the earth provided) to that of the “Takers” (those who demanded from the earth what they wanted). This notion of ownership laid the foundation for social hierarchy as property and power emerged. Domestication not only changes the ecology from a free to a totalitarian order, it enslaves the species that are domesticated. Generally the more an environment is controlled, the less sustainable it is. The domestication of humans themselves involves many trade-offs in comparison to the foraging, nomadic mode. It is worth noting here that most of the shifts made from nomadic foraging to domestication were not made autonomously, they were made by the blade of the sword or barrel of the gun. Whereas only 2000 years ago the majority of the world population were gatherer-hunters, it is now .01%. The path of domestication is a colonizing force that has meant myriad pathologies for the conquered population and the originators of the practice. Several examples include a decline in nutritional health due to over-reliance on non-diverse diets, almost 40–60 diseases integrated into human populations per domesticated animal (influenza, the common cold, tuberculosis, etc), the emergence of surplus which can be used to feed a population out of balance and which invariably involves property and an end to unconditional sharing.

The Origins and Dynamics of Patriarchy

Toward the beginning in the shift to civilization, an early product of domestication is patriarchy: the formalization of male domination and the development of institutions which reinforce it. By creating false gender distinctions and divisions between men and women, civilization, again, creates an “other” that can be objectified, controlled, dominated, utilized, and commodified. This runs parallel to the domestication of plants for agriculture and animals for herding, in general dynamics, and also in specifics like the control of reproduction. As in other realms of social stratification, roles are assigned to women in order to establish a very rigid and predictable order, beneficial to hierarchy. Woman come to be seen as property, no different then the crops in the field or the sheep in the pasture. Ownership and absolute control, whether of land, plants, animals, slaves, children, or women, is part of the established dynamic of civilization. Patriarchy demands the subjugation of the feminine and the usurpation of nature, propelling us toward total annihilation. It defines power, control and dominion over wildness, freedom, and life. Patriarchal conditioning dictates all of our interactions; with ourselves, our sexuality, our relationships to each other, and our relationship to nature. It severely limits the spectrum of possible experience. The interconnected relationship between the logic of civilization and patriarchy is undeniable; for thousands of years they have shaped the human experience on every level, from the institutional to the personal, while they have devoured life. To be against civilization, one must be against patriarchy; and to question patriarchy, it seems, one must also put civilization into question.

Division of Labor and Specialization

The disconnecting of the ability to care for ourselves and provide for our own needs is a technique of separation and disempowerment perpetuated by civilization. We are more useful to the system, and less useful to ourselves, if we are alienated from our own desires and each other through division of labor and specialization. We are no longer able to go out into the world and provide for ourselves and our loved ones the necessary nourishment and provisions for survival. Instead, we are forced into the production/consumption commodity system to which we are always indebted. Inequities of influence come about via the effective power of various kinds of experts. The concept of a specialist inherently creates power dynamics and undermines egalitarian relationships. While the Left may sometimes recognize these concepts politically, they are viewed as necessary dynamics, to keep in check or regulate, while green anarchists tend to see division of labor and specialization as fundamental and irreconcilable problems, decisive to social relationships within civilization.

The Rejection of Science

Most anti-civilization anarchists reject science as a method of understanding the world. Science is not neutral. It is loaded with motives and assumptions that come out of, and reinforce, the catastrophe of dissociation, disempowerment, and consuming deadness that we call “civilization.” Science assumes detachment. This is built into the very word “observation.” To “observe” something is to perceive it while distancing oneself emotionally and physically, to have a one-way channel of “information” moving from the observed thing to the “self,” which is defined as not a part of that thing. This death-based or mechanistic view is a religion, the dominant religion of our time. The method of science deals only with the quantitative. It does not admit values or emotions, or the way the air smells when it’s starting to rain—or if it deals with these things, it does so by transforming them into numbers, by turning oneness with the smell of the rain into abstract preoccupation with the chemical formula for ozone, turning the way it makes you feel into the intellectual idea that emotions are only an illusion of firing neurons. Numbers themselves are not truth but a chosen style of thinking. We have chosen a habit of mind that focuses our attention into a world removed from reality, where nothing has quality or awareness or a life of its own. We have chosen to transform the living into the dead. Careful-thinking scientists will admit that what they study is a narrow simulation of the complex real world, but few of them notice that this narrow focus is self-feeding, that it has built technological, economic, and political systems that are all working together, which suck our reality in on itself. As narrow as the world of numbers is, scientific method does not even permit all numbers—only those numbers which are reproducible, predictable, and the same for all observers. Of course reality itself is not reproducible or predictable or the same for all observers. But neither are fantasy worlds derived from reality. Science doesn’t stop at pulling us into a dream world—it goes one step further and makes this dream world a nightmare whose contents are selected for predictability and controllability and uniformity. All surprise and sensuality are vanquished. Because of science, states of consciousness that cannot be reliably disposed are classified as insane, or at best “non-ordinary,” and excluded. Anomalous experience, anomalous ideas, and anomalous people are cast off or destroyed like imperfectly-shaped machine components. Science is only a manifestation and locking in of an urge for control that we’ve had at least since we started farming fields and fencing animals instead of surfing the less predictable (but more abundant) world of reality, or “nature.” And from that time to now, this urge has driven every decision about what counts as “progress”, up to and including the genetic restructuring of life.

The Problem of Technology

All green anarchists question technology on some level. While there are those who still suggest the notion of “green” or “appropriate” technology and search for rationales to cling to forms of domestication, most reject technology completely. Technology is more than wires, silicon, plastic, and steel. It is a complex system involving division of labor, resource extraction, and exploitation for the benefit of those who implement its process. The interface with and result of technology is always an alienated, mediated, and distorted reality. Despite the claims of postmodern apologists and other technophiles, technology is not neutral. The values and goals of those who produce and control technology are always embedded within it. Technology is distinct from simple tools in many regards. A simple tool is a temporary usage of an element within our immediate surroundings used for a specific task. Tools do not involve complex systems which alienate the user from the act. Implicit in technology is this separation, creating an unhealthy and mediated experience which leads to various forms of authority. Domination increases every time a new “time-saving” technology is created, as it necessitates the construction of more technology to support, fuel, maintain and repair the original technology. This has led very rapidly to the establishment of a complex technological system that seems to have an existence independent from the humans who created it. Discarded by-products of the technological society are polluting both our physical and our psychological environments. Lives are stolen in service of the Machine and the toxic effluent of the technological system’s fuels—both are choking us. Technology is now replicating itself, with something resembling a sinister sentience. Technological society is a planetary infection, propelled forward by its own momentum, rapidly ordering a new kind of environment: one designed for mechanical efficiency and technological expansionism alone. The technological system methodically destroys, eliminates, or subordinates the natural world, constructing a world fit only for machines. The ideal for which the technological system strives is the mechanization of everything it encounters.

Production and Industrialism

A key component of the modern techno-capitalist structure is industrialism, the mechanized system of production built on centralized power and the exploitation of people and nature. Industrialism cannot exist without genocide, ecocide, and colonialism. To maintain it, coercion, land evictions, forced labor, cultural destruction, assimilation, ecological devastation, and global trade are accepted as necessary, even benign. Industrialism’s standardization of life objectifies and commodifies it, viewing all life as a potential resource. A critique of industrialism is a natural extension of the anarchist critique of the state because industrialism is inherently authoritarian. In order to maintain an industrial society, one must set out to conquer and colonize lands in order to acquire (generally) non-renewable resources to fuel and grease the machines. This colonialism is rationalized by racism, sexism, and cultural chauvinism. In the process of acquiring these resources, people must be forced off their land. And in order to make people work in the factories that produce the machines, they must be enslaved, made dependent, and otherwise subjected to the destructive, toxic, degrading industrial system. Industrialism cannot exist without massive centralization and specialization: Class domination is a tool of the industrial system that denies people access to resources and knowledge, making them helpless and easy to exploit. Furthermore, industrialism demands that resources be shipped from all over the globe in order to perpetuate its existence, and this globalism undermines local autonomy and self-sufficiency. It is a mechanistic worldview that is behind industrialism. This is the same world-view that has justified slavery, exterminations, and the subjugation of women. It should be obvious to all that industrialism is not only oppressive for humans, but that it is also fundamentally ecologically destructive.

Beyond Leftism

Unfortunately, many anarchists continue to be viewed, and view themselves, as part of the Left. This tendency is changing, as post-left and anti-civilization anarchists make clear distinctions between their perspectives and the bankruptcy of the socialist and liberal orientations. Not only has the Left proven itself to be a monumental failure in its objectives, but it is obvious from its history, contemporary practice, and ideological framework, that the Left (while presenting itself as altruistic and promoting “freedom”) is actually the antithesis of liberation. The Left has never fundamentally questioned technology, production, organization, representation, alienation, authoritarianism, morality, or Progress, and it has almost nothing to say about ecology, autonomy, or the individual on any meaningful level. The Left is a general term and can roughly describe all socialist leanings (from social democrats and liberals to Maoists and Stalinists) which wish to re-socialize “the masses” into a more “progressive” agenda, often using coercive and manipulative approaches in order to create a false “unity” or the creation of political parties. While the methods or extremes in implementation may differ, the overall push is the same, the institution of a collectivized and monolithic world-view based on morality.

Against Mass Society

Most anarchists and “revolutionaries” spend a significant portion of their time developing schemes and mechanisms for production, distribution, adjudication, and communication between large numbers of people; in other words, the functioning of a complex society. But not all anarchists accept the premise of global (or even regional) social, political, and economic coordination and interdependence, or the organization needed for their administration. We reject mass society for practical and philosophical reasons. First, we reject the inherent representation necessary for the functioning of situations outside of the realm of direct experience (completely decentralized modes of existence). We do not wish to run society, or organize a different society, we want a completely different frame of reference. We want a world where each group is autonomous and decides on its own terms how to live, with all interactions based on affinity, free and open, and non-coercive. We want a life which we live, not one which is run. Mass society brutally collides not only with autonomy and the individual, but also with the earth. It is simply not sustainable (in terms of the resource extraction, transportation, and communication systems necessary for any global economic system) to continue on with, or to provide alternative plans for a mass society. Again, radical de-centralization seems key to autonomy and providing non-hierarchical and sustainable methods of subsistence.

Liberation vs Organization

We are beings striving for a deep and total break with the civilized order, anarchists desiring unrestrained freedom. We fight for liberation, for a de-centralized and unmediated relationship with our surroundings and those we love and share affinity with. Organizational models only provide us with more of the same bureaucracy, control, and alienation that we receive from the current set-up. While there might be an occasional good intention, the organizational model comes from an inherently paternalistic and distrusting mindset which seems contradictory to anarchy. True relationships of affinity come from a deep understanding of one another through intimate need-based relationships of day-to-day life, not relationships based on organizations, ideologies, or abstract ideas. Typically, the organizational model suppresses individual needs and desires for “the good of the collective” as it attempts to standardize both resistance and vision. From parties, to platforms, to federations, it seems that as the scale of projects increase, the meaning and relevance they have for one’s own life decrease. Organizations are means for stabilizing creativity, controlling dissent, and reducing “counter-revolutionary tangents” (as chiefly determined by the elite cadres or leadership). They typically dwell in the quantitative, rather than the qualitative, and offer little space for independent thought or action. Informal, affinity-based associations tend to minimize alienation from decisions and processes, and reduce mediation between our desires and our actions. Relationships between groups of affinity are best left organic and temporal, rather than fixed and rigid.

Revolution vs Reform

As anarchists, we are fundamentally opposed to government, and likewise, any sort of collaboration or mediation with the state (or any institution of hierarchy and control). This position determines a certain continuity or direction of strategy, historically referred to as revolution. This term, while warped, diluted, and co-opted by various ideologies and agendas, can still have meaning to the anarchist and anti-ideological praxis. By revolution, we mean the ongoing struggle to alter the social and political landscape in a fundamental way; for anarchists, this means its complete dismantling. The word “revolution” is dependent on the position from which it is directed, as well as what would be termed “revolutionary” activity. Again, for anarchists, this is activity which is aimed at the complete dissolving of power. Reform, on the other hand, entails any activity or strategy aimed at adjusting, altering, or selectively maintaining elements of the current system, typically utilizing the methods or apparatus of that system. The goals and methods of revolution cannot be dictated by, nor performed within, the context of the system. For anarchists, revolution and reform invoke incompatible methods and aims, and despite certain anarcho-liberal approaches, do not exist on a continuum. For anti-civilization anarchists, revolutionary activity questions, challenges, and works to dismantle the entire set-up or paradigm of civilization. Revolution is also not a far-off or distant singular event which we build towards or prepare people for, but instead, a life-way or practice of approaching situations.

Resisting the Mega-Machine

Anarchists in general, and green anarchists in particular, favor direct action over mediated or symbolic forms of resistance. Various methods and approaches, including cultural subversion, sabotage, insurrection, and political violence (although not limited to these) have been and remain part of the anarchist arsenal of attack. No one tactic can be effective in significantly altering the current order or its trajectory, but these methods, combined with transparent and ongoing social critique, are important. Subversion of the system can occur from the subtle to the dramatic, and can also be an important element of physical resistance. Sabotage has always been a vital part of anarchist activities, whether in the form of spontaneous vandalism (public or nocturnal) or through more highly illegal underground coordination in cell formation. Recently, groups like the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmental group made up of autonomous cells targeting those who profit off of the destruction of the earth, have caused millions of dollars of damage to corporate outlets and offices, banks, timber mills, genetic research facilities, sport utility vehicles, and luxury homes. These actions, often taking the form of arson, along with articulate communiqués frequently indicting civilization, have inspired others to take action, and are effective means of not only bringing attention to environmental degradation, but also as deterrents to specific earth destroyers. Insurrectionary activity, or the proliferation of insurrectionary moments which can cause a rupture in the social peace in which people’s spontaneous rage can be unleashed and possibly spread into revolutionary conditions, are also on the rise. The riots in Seattle in 1999, Prague in 2000, and Genoa in 2001, were all (in different ways) sparks of insurrectionary activity, which, although limited in scope, can be seen as attempts to move in insurrectionary directions and make qualitative breaks with reformism and the entire system of enslavement. Political violence, including the targeting of individuals responsible for specific activities or the decisions which lead to oppression, has also been a focus for anarchists historically. Finally, considering the immense reality and all-pervasive reach of the system (socially, politically, technologically), attacks on the techno-grid and infrastructure of the mega-machine are of interest to anti-civilization anarchists. Regardless of approaches and intensity, militant action coupled with insightful analysis of civilization is increasing.

The Need to be Critical

As the march towards global annihilation continues, as society becomes more unhealthy, as we lose more control over our own lives, and as we fail to create significant resistance to the death-culture, it is vital for us to be extremely critical of past “revolutionary” movements, current struggles, and our own projects. We cannot perpetually repeat the mistakes of the past or be blind to our own deficiencies. The radical environmental movement is filled with single-issued campaigns and symbolic gestures and the anarchist scene is plagued with leftist and liberal tendencies. Both continue to go through rather meaningless “activist” motions, rarely attempting to objectively assess their (in)effectiveness. Often guilt and self-sacrifice, rather than their own liberation and freedom, guide these social do-gooders, as they proceed along a course that has been plotted out by the failures before them. The Left is a festering sore on the ass of humanity, environmentalists have been unsuccessful at preserving even a fraction of wild areas, and anarchists rarely have anything provocative to say, let alone do. While some would argue against criticism because it is “divisive”, any truly radical perspective would see the necessity of critical examination, in changing our lives and the world we inhabit. Those who wish to quell all debate until “after the revolution”, to contain all discussion into vague and meaningless chatter, and to subdue criticism of strategy, tactics, or ideas, are going nowhere, and can only hold us back. An essential aspect to any radical anarchist perspective must be to put everything into question, certainly including our own ideas, projects, and actions.

Influences and Solidarity

The green anarchist perspective is diverse and open, yet it does contain some continuity and primary elements. It has been influenced by anarchists, primitivists, Luddites, insurrectionalists, Situationists, surrealists, nihilists, deep ecologists, bioregionalists, eco-feminists, various indigenous cultures, anti-colonial struggles, the feral, the wild, and the earth. Anarchists, obviously, contribute the anti-authoritarian push, which challenges all power on a fundamental level, striving for truly egalitarian relationships and promoting mutual-aid communities. Green anarchists, however, extend ideas of non-domination to all of life, not just human life, going beyond the traditional anarchist analysis. From primitivists, green anarchists are informed with a critical and provocative look at the origins of civilization, so as to understand what this mess is and how we got here, to help inform a change in direction. Inspired by the Luddites, green anarchists rekindle an anti-technological/industrial direct action orientation. Insurrectionalists infuse a perspective which waits not for the fine-tuning of a crystalline critique, but identify and spontaneously attack current institutions of civilization which inherently bind our freedom and desire. Anti-civilization anarchists owe much to the Situationists, and their critique of the alienating commodity society, which we can break from by connecting with our dreams and unmediated desires. Nihilism’s refusal to accept any of the current reality understands the deeply engrained unhealth of this society and offers green anarchists a strategy which does not necessitate offering visions for society, but instead focuses on its destruction. Deep ecology, despite its misanthropic tendencies, informs the green anarchist perspective with an understanding that the well-being and flourishing of all life is linked to the awareness of the inherent worth and intrinsic value of the non-human world independent of use value. Deep ecology’s appreciation for the richness and diversity of life contributes to the realization that the present human interference with the non-human world is coercive and excessive, with the situation rapidly worsening. Bioregionalists bring the perspective of living within one’s bioregion, and being intimately connected to the land, water, climate, plants, animals, and general patterns of their bioregion. Eco-feminists have contributed to the comprehension of the roots, dynamics, manifestations, and reality of patriarchy, and its effect on the earth, women in particular, and humanity in general. Recently, the destructive separation of humans from the earth (civilization) has probably been articulated most clearly and intensely by eco-feminists. Anti-civilization anarchists have been profoundly influenced by the various indigenous cultures and earth-based peoples throughout history and those who still currently exist. While we humbly learn and incorporate sustainable techniques for survival and healthier ways of interacting with life, it is important to not flatten or generalize native peoples and their cultures, and to respect and attempt to understand their diversity without co-opting cultural identities and characteristics. Solidarity, support, and attempts to connect with native and anti-colonial struggles, which have been the front-lines of the fight against civilization, are essential as we attempt to dismantle the death-machine. It is also important to understand that we, at some point, have all come from earth-based peoples forcibly removed from our connections with the earth, and therefore have a place within anti-colonial struggles. We are also inspired by the feral, those who have escaped domestication and have re-integrated with the wild. And, of course, the wild beings which make up this beautiful blue and green organism called Earth. It is also important to remember that, while many green anarchists draw influence from similar sources, green anarchy is something very personal to each who identify or connect with these ideas and actions. Perspectives derived from one’s own life experiences within the death-culture (civilization), and one’s own desires outside the domestication process, are ultimately the most vivid and important in the uncivilizing process.

Rewilding and Reconnection

For most green/anti-civilization/primitivist anarchists, rewilding and reconnecting with the earth is a life project. It is not limited to intellectual comprehension or the practice of primitive skills, but instead, it is a deep understanding of the pervasive ways in which we are domesticated, fractured, and dislocated from our selves, each other, and the world, and the enormous and daily undertaking to be whole again. Rewilding has a physical component which involves reclaiming skills and developing methods for a sustainable co-existence, including how to feed, shelter, and heal ourselves with the plants, animals, and materials occurring naturally in our bioregion. It also includes the dismantling of the physical manifestations, apparatus, and infrastructure of civilization. Rewilding has an emotional component, which involves healing ourselves and each other from the 10,000 year-old wounds which run deep, learning how to live together in non-hierarchical and non-oppressive communities, and deconstructing the domesticating mindset in our social patterns. Rewilding involves prioritizing direct experience and passion over mediation and alienation, re-thinking every dynamic and aspect of our reality, connecting with our feral fury to defend our lives and to fight for a liberated existence, developing more trust in our intuition and being more connected to our instincts, and regaining the balance that has been virtually destroyed after thousands of years of patriarchal control and domestication. Rewilding is the process of becoming uncivilized.

For the Destruction of Civilization!

For the Reconnection to Life!

[arcticdementor]

“Come, you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here.” This, one of Lady Macbeth’s most famous lines, is cited by Elizabeth Winkler in her recent Atlantic essay, “Was Shakespeare a Woman?,” as a thrilling instance of a woman’s resistance to femininity. Winkler then goes on to compare Lady Macbeth’s anger to women’s #MeToo “fury.” “This woman,” Winkler says of Lady Macbeth, woke her out of her “adolescent stupor” by “rebelling magnificently and malevolently against her submissive status.”

Of course, what Lady Macbeth is actually about to do is help her husband murder an innocent man, the king, in cold blood while he sleeps under her own roof. Unless one aligns female empowerment with sociopathic behavior, this isn’t really a triumphant moment for women’s liberation. Nor would any reading of the text other than a willfully perverse one count her as one of Shakespeare’s admirable characters. When she celebrates Lady Macbeth as one of Shakespeare’s heroines simply because Lady M has the desire to do something horrific, there is indeed something adolescent about Winkler’s attitude.

…

But what I find more troubling is the assumption that forms the foundation of Winkler’s thesis: the belief that men don’t really like women, at least not enough to think and write about them with understanding and empathy; not enough to see the value in female friendships and feminine bonds of love and fidelity; and certainly not enough to find strong, tough, funny, clever women believable, admirable, and desirable. When I consider the men I know, male friends and relatives, colleagues, fathers of my children’s classmates, Winkler’s failure to entertain the notion that a man could have written the compelling female characters that populate Shakespeare’s plays is more than merely baffling, it is an insult to men, both past and present.

I have written elsewhere about how contemporary feminism needs the idea of an oppressive patriarchy in order to define women as victims of oppression, and as such it seeks to attach to men a primal stain of (toxic) masculinity so that third-wave feminism is righteously justified in all its complaints against them. Fighting “The Patriarchy” is feminism’s raison d’etre, and without this enemy the cause itself is in jeopardy (see Feminism’s Dependency Trap in Quillette). It seems as though Winkler’s take on Shakespeare is yet another iteration of feminism’s belief that men have a blind spot for women’s humanity. The irony of the current feminist orthodoxy, however, is that it is women who fail to see men’s position clearly. A further —and funnier—irony, if one has a palate for the absurd and the tragic, is that most men, for their part, are usually so chivalrous, so solicitous of women as people, that they sympathize with women’s crusade against them, and by and large assent to women’s complaints. They must really like us!

…

But what troubles me is that women commonly fail to appreciate the internal struggle men have with their sexual instincts, and instead condemn them for having these instincts at all. In other words, consciousness raising feminism rightly asserts that men shouldn’t treat women like objects for their use, but it does so while being unconscious of men’s humanity, and as a consequence, both minimizes and punishes the male sexual instinct that causes men to see women sexually in spite of men’s civilizing efforts not to.

What contemporary feminism fails to adequately grapple with is nature itself, and as a result, feminist attitudes towards men, and particularly towards male sexuality, are compassionless and punitive (not to mention humourless—and human sexuality is so often very funny!). With a blind spot for men’s experiences, consciousness raising feminist attitudes towards male sexual energy are unlikely to inspire mutual respect, and instead work to engender resentment, anxiety, and unhappiness.

…

An obvious oversight in Winkler’s grad school approach to understanding Shakespeare is that while she is correct to assert that Shakespeare wrote female characters with whom he clearly empathises, she might have at least once considered that he also does the same with men. In what follows, I want to look briefly at one of Shakespeare’s most reprehensible male characters, the magistrate Angelo from Measure for Measure. I want to think about him carefully, not merely to look at how he uses his power to mistreat women in Weinstein-esque fashion (although he does indeed do this), and not simply to condemn him for his misogynistic sexual anger (although his behavior is very wrong). But, rather, to try to understand his internal struggle with his own lack of self-sovereignty, the crisis that his desire elicits: the sudden, inescapable, and unwanted pressure that his sexual nature exerts over his better judgement which overturns his self-autonomy and will.

…

In contemporary expressions of male predatory sexuality told from the perspective of women, such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, now a popular television show, men are viewed as powerful, threatening, and in a real sense empty of humanity, a kind of monolith of authority. Shakespeare’s Angelo is very different in that when his sexual appetite is awakened, he realizes that he is in fact almost entirely powerless. He doesn’t want to want her, and is confused and overwhelmed by how his sense of identity and autonomy have been absolutely overturned by this woman, who intended to do nothing of the sort. It is in part his astonishment at his own sexual desires, and in part his disgust with these desires, that make him so fascinating.

“What’s this? What’s this?” he asks himself as soon as Isabella takes her leave after pleading with him to have mercy on her brother’s life, “Is it her fault or mine? / The tempter or the tempted who sins most, ha? / Not she, nor doth she tempt; but it is I.” In this moment Angelo encounters for the first time his own sexual nature that he would really and truly prefer to be without. Unacknowledged in himself previously, Angelo judges harshly others’ sexual desires (that is why he has arrested and condemned to death Isabella’s brother). In some ways, he is the #MeToo movement’s goal: to have an impartial bureaucratic system of rules rather than any actual humans arbitrate the morality that governs sexual behavior. His lack of humanity is what might make his authority fair, if it weren’t so brutal. And it is his encounter with his own messy humanity that causes him to realize that the self he has constructed, the chosen identity he wanted for himself, has collided with a nature about which he can do little to change. We are, all of us, in some ways, not at home in our bodies.

I am obviously not endorsing Angelo’s course of action. He is the slimy villain of this play, there is no doubt about that. And I am obviously not excusing any man’s sexual coercion of a woman. These are serious criminal and immoral acts. It isn’t at all Angelo’s submission to his desires that I find instructive here, but rather the internal self-abasement he feels at having them in the first place, a self-abasement that is transformed into self-disgust because he suddenly realizes how little control he has over his lust. “Blood, thou art blood,” he says. “I have begun, / And now I give my sensual race the rein.”

Again, and I feel like I need to keep repeating this here lest I be misunderstood and used to excuse sexual aggression, Angelo does not have control over his nature, but he does over his behaviour, and it is his refusal to find himself up for the task of contending with his nature that makes him a villain. What feminism doesn’t understand, and probably doesn’t want to understand because it might create compassion for male sexuality, is the internal struggle of men against their own appetites. Men must possess and exert a strong and powerful will, not over women to pressure them into unwanted sex, but over themselves so that they don’t. The male will, what Simone de Beauvoir called transcendence over immanence, might be a very real quality because from adolescence onwards men must be well practiced in it.

…

You might be asking, “Ok, men have powerful sexual desires that their masculine assertiveness must work to control. What now?” I am asking myself this same question, and of course there is no easy answer. The history of civilization is, in many respects, our struggle with the intractable problem of human sexuality: the conflict of our Nature and our Reason. Some cultures have taken the tack that it’s better to try and eliminate men’s oppressive sexual nature by hiding their oppressors, and so we can see the burka, for instance, as an attempt to minimize the constant gnawing pressure of male sexual instincts, with greater or lesser success. In the West, other codes have been adopted. Christianity’s influence, the ideas of self-sacrifice, service, and human dignity, have mixed with barbaric European warrior cultures, which resulted in the codes of chivalry. This approach to our sexuality has worked, not perfectly, but pretty well, actually, all things considered. Yet now the ground of Western civilization is shifting, not from influences outside us, but from within, and the assumptions of chivalrous attitudes are the very things being taken to task. What’s next? Women’s revenge? (I’ve read Hamlet—revenge seems like a bad idea.) An unsexing of the selves? (I’ve read Macbeth; this one seems like a bad idea, too.)

…

Just as Angelo fails to respect his own sexual nature until it overpowers him, the near-nun Isabella also fails to contend with her nature as a woman. She is disgusted with her feminine sexual nature, it seems, which is why she desires to enter into the strictest order of nuns in the first place. Isabella’s relationship to her own sexuality is complex, but at bottom what she lacks is the strength and willpower needed to confront and handle her sexual power over men. She doesn’t know what to do with her sex appeal. Like Angelo, what she has been unwilling to face is her own nature. Since she isn’t up for the task, she seeks to retreat absolutely from the challenge: become a nun of the strictest order. Without men to desire her, in herself she becomes sexless. In Isabella we are faced with the flip-side to Lady Macbeth’s “unsex me here,” which is, in that play, too, a rejection and denial of nature, not, as Winkler wants to believe, of woman’s submissive social status. By vilifying the male sexual desire for women, consciousness-raising feminism seeks to relieve women of the burden of confronting the part of their own sexual nature that comes into being as a response to male desire.

…

If contemporary feminist orthodoxy insists that masculine sexual energy is, in itself, “toxic” and must thus be written out of social discourse, women will not have to contend with their own powerful sexual nature as the inspiration and location for the masculine imagination. But women’s condemnation of men’s sexuality will not inspire women to understand themselves sexually, nor is it likely to help men understand women. No woman should lose her sense of agency and self-integrity, but is it really such a horror to accept that we’re not entirely autonomous creatures, that we’re, in fact, meant to understand ourselves not merely as individuals, but relationally? The failure to contend with our natures because it is easier to retreat into our own self-willed dream of autonomy seems less like moral progress, and more like a lonely lack of courage.

So what is the answer to the intractable battle of the sexes? Hopefully it will continue to be a somewhat awkward answer, one that we will have to fumble through together. But if we do not treat our natures with honesty and understanding, with affection, humour, and generosity, then I am unconvinced that we will become less resentful, more just, or in any way happy about our human bodies.

[pussymagicuniverse]

Catamenial Mania: Looking Towards the Prevalence of Period Porn

it’s easy to blame porn. it’s easy to give porn credit.

throughout history, the depictions of porn and our interactions with it have offered reflections and refractions of humanity’s most truthful and most unaware designs. manifestations of the most extreme and the most banal flights into fantasy prejudices and biases for all to hear and see and come to.

it’s a safe bet to say that periods predate porn.

the scarcity of period porn has not gone unnoticed and was the topic of a talk at the first world pornography conference in 1998. it had crossed my mind on a number of occasions why period porn had never popped up as often as i thought it would, considering that it had never popped up at all. once i debated with someone that such a thing as yeast infection porn couldn’t possibly exist, least of all because having sex with a yeast infection is a horribly uncomfortable experience. and despite it all it only took a single search on PornHub to find a video.

it’s understandable that some people prefer to keep porn as a fantasy. but how can fantasies incorporate every conceivable thing but still want to keep themselves untainted by a little blood. how could period blood not be a part of someone’s fantasy, anyone’s fantasy, especially when it’s a fact that most people with cunts get especially horny on their period.  

while there are a number of factors that play into what kind of porn is made, how it is made, who it is made by, and where it is accessible, in the hierarchy of censorship it turns out that one of the main hindrances to period porn are the payment processors rather than the porn industry itself. billing companies and payment processing companies such as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal for example, impose content restrictions and strict regulations around the words used and content provided and reserve the right to refuse to process payments for companies and websites if they allow content on their platform that violates these regulations, due to their designation of such websites as ‘high risk.’ i was exposed to this thanks to a terrific thread by writer Lux Alptraum.

“the cunt cannot help the blood it puts forth. it cannot help but flounder in life and death and creation. ambiguity and instability are implicit in its folds and people with cunts are all too aware.” (click to tweet)

looking at one example of a list of forbidden words, at first glance it doesn’t seem entirely outrageous. it’s understandable that one wouldn’t want to be promoting or legitimizing abusive, violent, or non-consensual content. it’s understandable that one wouldn’t want to be associated with snuff films. some words come in a variety so it’s clear that someone wants to cover all their bases. one can rationalize how blood might come to be on that list in regards to violence or abuse or death. however, with the inclusion of ‘menstrual, menstruate, menstruation’ it becomes clear that blood isn’t innocently forbidden. 

to highlight multiple versions of menstruation (not to mention ‘period’ is also on that list, right in-between ‘pedophilia’ and ‘popper’) and put them on the same level as abuse or bigotry or slurs is a blatant demonization of people with cunts. to instate a policy that underlines natural and healthy bleeding as something that should be restricted or forbidden is nothing more than a dehumanization. to say that the blood that comes out of someone’s legs is so shameful is so dangerous that even the mere mention of the word to describe such an act is impermissible does nothing but reflect the face of patriarchy.

even unrelated connotations suffer under this. according to an interview in a Vice article that investigates this censorship a BDSM site remarks that they can no longer use red candles in their wax play because “wasteland's payment processors seem to think melted red wax is a dead ringer for blood.”

there are no good reasons to look down on menstruation. there is absolutely no excuse and there is absolutely no justification that is not based in misogyny. it is the only blood that belongs outside and yet in our daily content we find ourselves exposed to every kind but. 

“anything that denies a person with a bleeding cunt is demonstrative of patriarchy.” (click to tweet)

this is how power dynamics manifest now in the neoliberal world we have generated; through the withholding of not just money and profit but the ability of exchange in itself. these payment processors and billing agents have nothing to do with the money that is being exchanged but through the mere threat of withholding the act of exchange content disappears from sight. not to say that it’s impossible to find but how many people look further than PornHub or XVideos or whatever one’s main site happens to be. this lack of visibility is entirely intentional not towards creating a fantasy but towards upholding a system of oppression and erasure. porn companies and independent porn producers can keep making all the self-conscious and feminist porn they want, but billing companies will ensure that their content never becomes mainstream.

even the act of trying to find information directly from Visa or Mastercard proves difficult. Google searches don’t seem to register the term menstruation and instead change it to ‘period’ in their algorithms. whether or not this is a prerogative of Google’s or an SEO pairing function from the billing companies is unclear.

the act of withholding payment processing when others don’t abide by your values is neither new nor limited to the world of porn. as of the writing of this post the United States is still considering imposing financial sanctions on Venezuela that may lead to Visa and Mastercard being unable to process payments in the country. another effort against Maduro and his supporters, the United States expresses its dissatisfaction at dissent not by withholding money but by withholding the ability to use money.

it’s easy to think that through the withholding of money or the ability to exchange money, values may be influenced. it’s easy to think that that’s the only way to influence people’s behavior. but besides the fact that it’s fairly agreed upon that economic sanctions don’t really work, it’s absurd to think that the act of exchanging money is being withheld in order to keep people from being exposed to the blood that comes from cunts.

“to instate a policy that underlines natural and healthy bleeding as something that should be restricted or forbidden is nothing more than a dehumanization.” (click to tweet)

around the world one of the common denominators of patriarchy is the damnation of menstruation. the effects of patriarchal thinking vary around the globe but the misogyny of stigmatizing what comes out of a person’s cunt seems to be a constant. whether through refusing to call it by its name offering odd euphemisms in its stead taxing products designed to aid the process making products hard to find making people with cunts seclude themselves following them to watch them change causing pain misattributing pain ignoring pain silencing them deeming them impure deciding everything touched is impure or some other sort of nonsense. 

not everyone enjoys period sex. not everyone enjoys watching period porn. this isn’t about preferences or comfort levels. this is about the erasure and mistreatment of something that happens to people with cunts at least 450 times in their lives. what other constant is so widely ignored. what other biological constant is used as blackmail against profit.

anything that denies a person with a bleeding cunt is demonstrative of patriarchy.

this denial is not new but nor is it timeless. in both roman and etruscan mythologies there existed a goddess of the dead of spirits of chaos called mania (or manea). in Greek mythology, Mania is the goddess of insanity and madness. her name ties her to another roman goddess called Mana Genita, whose name Plurarch derives the latin verb manare, meaning to flow to shed to pour forth. in itself this bleeding is the standard for normativity. its madness is essential towards existence. it is only through our own interactions with it whether we decide to respect it or vilify it.

there is nothing wrong with chaos. there is nothing insane about insanity. it is all a part of being alive being human being whatever this concoction of cells happens to be. but the more we deny what is basic in us the harder it will be to figure out what is extraordinary.  

the cunt cannot help the blood it puts forth. it cannot help but flounder in life and death and creation. ambiguity and instability are implicit in its folds and people with cunts are all too aware. to watch those around you participate in its erasure is infuriating. but people with cunts never forget.

further play:

Erotic Red

Why is ‘Period’-Porn So Rare? An Explanatory Mess

Vampire Porn Challenges Period Sex Stigma

How My Periods Made Me More Aware Of Patriarchy In The North East

Period poverty: Scotland poll shows women go to desperate lengths

Citing Gender Bias, State Lawmakers Move To Eliminate 'Tampon Tax'

Period-Shaming Isn’t Rooted In Indian Culture, But In Patriarchy

Do Vampires Menstruate? The Power Of Jenny Hval’s New Album Blood Bitch

How did menstruation become taboo?

Rubyfloetics: A Period Poem Mixtape

marina manoukian is a reader and writer and collage artist. she currently resides in berlin while she studies and works. she likes honey and she loves bees. you can find more of her words and images at marinamanoukian.com or twitter/instagram at @crimeiscommon.

[the-feminist-philosopher]

Whipping Girl is a very misogynistic philosophy on womanhood. Serrano describes how he thinks he's a woman because to him, his gender identity is linked with childhood sexual abuse he endured. He describes womanhood as a state of being a sex object. There is nothing remotely feminist about that book. How you could read that and not come out of it realizing that trans identities are rooted in misogyny is beyond me. I use that book as a perfect example of how transgenderism is a product of sexism.

The book is literally about the scapegoating and demonization of femininity where, under the patriarchy, to be a woman and to be feminine is to be a sex object.

I know TERFs critically lack reading comprehension, but this is some of the worst I've seen. It'd be like saying that the Great Gatsby is about encouraging greed.

“The greatest barrier preventing us from fully challenging sexism is the pervasive antifeminine sentiment that runs wild in both the straight and queer communities, targeting people of all genders and sexualities. The only realistic way to address this issue is to work toward empowering femininity itself. We must rightly recognize that feminine expression is strong, daring, and brave - that it is powerful - and not in an enchanting, enticing, or supernatural sort of way, but in a tangible, practical way that facilitates openness, creativity, and honest expression. We must move beyond seeing femininity as helpless and dependent, or merely as masculinity's sidekick, and instead acknowledge that feminine expression exists of its own accord and brings its own rewards to those who naturally gravitate toward it. By embracing femininity, feminism will finally be able to reach out to the vast majority of feminine women who have felt alienated by the movement in the past.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

“[U]ntil feminists work to empower femininity and pry it away from the insipid, inferior meanings that plague it - weakness, helplessness, fragility, passivity, frivolity, and artificiality - those meanings will continue to haunt every person who is female and/or feminine.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

“Many of us reject all of the inferior meanings and connotations that others project onto femininity - that it is weak, artificial, frivolous, demure, and passive - because for us, there has been no act more bold and daring than embracing our own femininity. In a world that is awash in antifeminine sentiment, we understand that embracing and empowering femininity can potentially be one of the most transformative and revolutionary acts imaginable.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

“Male pride is not really about pride. It's about fear - the fear of being seen as feminine. And that's why "girl stuff" is so dangerous. And as long as most men remain deathly afraid of it, they'll continue to take it out on the rest of us.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

“In a world where masculinity is respected and femininity is regularly dismissed, it takes an enormous amount of strength and confidence for any person, whether female- or male-bodied, to embrace their feminine self.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

“[I]magine what would happen if, instead of centering our beliefs about heterosexual sex around the idea that the man “penetrates” the woman, we were to say that the woman’s vagina “consumes” the man’s penis. This would create a very different set of connotations, as the woman would become the active initiator and the man would be the passive and receptive party. One can easily see how this could lead to men and masculinity being seen as dependent on, and existing for the benefit of, femaleness and femininity. Similarly, if we thought about the feminine traits of being verbally effusive and emotive not as signs of insecurity or dependence, but as bold acts of self-expression, then the masculine ideal of the “strong and silent” type might suddenly seem timid and insecure by comparison.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

^BTW, what she's talking about here is a part of a feminist trend.

“See, we live in a phallus obsessed culture, where we're all brought up to believe that everything having to do with gender and sexuality somehow revolves around the penis. That's why so many clueless straight guys come on to dykes with pickup lines like "Once you've had the real thing, baby, you won't ever go back." Some men actually believe that phallocentric crap! And it's also why most people can't even talk about transsexual women or SRS without centring the discussion on the penis. But my desire to have SRS has virtually nothing to do with my penis. This is about my wanting to have a clitoris and vagina. But we don't even have the language to describe this desire.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

“In a male-centered gender hierarchy, where it is assumed that men are better than women and that masculinity is superior to femininity, there is no greater perceived threat than the existence of trans women, who despite being born male and inheriting male privilege ‘choose’ to be female instead.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

“There are several telltale signs of flawed gender theories. First, we should beware of any gender theory that makes the assumption that there is any one "right" or "natural" way to be gendered or to be sexual. Such theories are typically narcissistic in nature, as they merely reveal their designers' desire to cast themselves on top of the gender hierarchy. Further, if one presumes there is only one "right" or "natural" way to be gendered, then the only way to explain why some people display typical gender and sexual traits while others display exceptional ones is by surmising that one of those two groups is being intentionally led astray somehow. Indeed, this is exactly what the religious right argues when they invent stories about homosexuals who recruit young children via the "gay agenda". Those who claim that we are all born with bisexual, androgynous, or gender-neutral tendencies (only to be molded into heterosexual, masculine men and feminine women via socialization and gender norms) use a similar strategy.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

I don't know how you can walk away from reading this book and not see the explicitly feminist writing on the walls. Her theories mirror many of those from Dworkin and MacKinnon. The only reason you walked away thinking you were saying anything different than she was is simply because you didn't listen. You refused to absorb the contents of the book because the voice came from a trans woman. You refuse to believe she could say such explicitly things.

her gender identity is linked with childhood sexual abuse she endured.

Many people's identities are tied up in the abuse they endured. Things like poverty and ACES permanently affect people. I have PTSD from my mother trying to (and partially succeeding to) pour boiling hot water on me as a kid (among many other things). That is a very real part of my background that affects the type of adult I am today. Experiencing anything from racism and misogyny and transphobia and ableism and poverty is going to affect your identity.

Many, many trans-exclusionaries define their womanhood through the trauma they endured. Many of them define their womanhood through their rapes or assaults, calling them an "integral part" of girlhood. Many of them also define their sexualization under the patriarchy as a fundamental part or experience of womanhood and girlhood. And many of them use their rape and sexualization not just to define their womanhood, but to try and exclude transwomen-- many of whom have also been raped and sexualized by the patriarchy.

[karolinadariaflora-blog]

On this winter night, sitting by the fireplace, I feel like sharing some more thoughts, cause I’ll be gone for a while, and had never been good at answering questions I get on here or at any digital contact whatsoever… Anyways, it’s been some time, cause already in 2013, after having met Bianca Casady, cross-disciplinary artist of music duo CocoRosie, I gave an extensive interview that, along with my photos, was published in the second issue of the magazine Girls Against God, that she created in partnership with artist Anne Sherwood-Pundyk. If I was to answer these questions now, 4 years later, many of them would have been answered differently, some using less, other more words. But even after all the time that had passed since, these words will still put some landmarks in the landscapes I portray and invite you to travel through with me. Thank you everyone for joining me on this journey, with love,

K.

’’The second issue of GAG—a pocket book of practical magic—investigates and celebrates spiritual healing, instinctually tying together the earth and women’s bodies. Through essays, fiction, poetry, interviews and spells GAG Issue 2 delves into the roots of occult earth wisdom passed through generations of women against persecution and patriarchy. A boldly feminist exploration and multi-generational endeavour, GAG deploys the arts to illuminate the oppressive, obsolete nature of traditional, male-defined religions and other patriarchal institutions—“We must resist and reinvent,” Casady declares.’’

GAG kicked off at the 9th Annual New York Art Book Fair in 2014. You can still get a copy of it here 

Who are the people in your photographs?

Karolina: These are different aspects of the feminine energy, taking form and telling stories. They are archetypes, and each figure bears a lot of symbolism for the viewer to decipher. Even if I portray a man, he represents a more intuitive, heart-centered, feminine part of himself. These personas understand the language of the birds, can see the eighth color of the light spectrum, they lived through snake bites, and they all well remember their star origins. Very often these photographs are my auto-portraits in a way. Each silhouette walking away, seen from behind, represents my nomadic urge to follow the setting sun, to always be free, to always stay on that self-rememebering journey.

The figures in the photographs seem to all belong to the same utopian world. They look like members of some imaginary nature tribe. Can you tell us something about these figures and the landscape they move in?

K.: They are Healers, Shamans, Cosmic Dancers, Weavers of Magical Realities, Wise Men, High Priests and Priestesses, Keepers of Divine Knowledge, Goddesses. They are all Free Spirits and they all live here. It is the reality where you can manifest your dreams instantly, with no fear, where looking inside the dark, spiralling vortex expands the consciousness. I let my spirit travel on its waves and it takes me to the center of the Galaxy. I know I cannot take anyone with me, it’s a solitary journey, it leads to the heart, but I can bring back some things here, and so I do. The most amazing things happen when I meet souls who have been where I’ve been too, or when I explore universes that are the core of their hearts. When we find each other, the recognition on a soul level is immediate. I feel thats’s why people  share their worlds through art — when they find members of their star families, everything falls into place.

Is there some ritual or folklore you think our materialistic and secular culture is missing?

K.: Yes, there are two. One of them is opening all indigenous sacred ceremonies. Connecting your heart with the heart of Mother Earth and Father Sky is one of the most beautiful and important meditations. When the love it creates fills you, a very unique vibration enters into your spirit. Then you can feel the immense love for yourself, remember who you really are, and finally enter your heart. No meditation and no ritual can be performed properly without first  establishing that connection. It’s called the Unity Breath. Just by practicing it, the most unthinkable miracles have happened in my life — images from my heart became real in no time. Another thing would be if more people became aware of the real potential of the sexual energy they carry (that Egyptian Tantra speaks about, for example.) It’s been long forgotten, neglected by the churches that did not want people to use it. It is based on the electro-magnetic charges feminine and masculine energies possess (not genders.) Feminine energy is magnetic and masculine energy is electrical. The exchange happens on the atomic level, creating a frequency that opens consciousness to higher realms. Everything can be brought into existence from that connection, but the base of it has to be love, always.

Is there a division between art and life for you?

K.: For me there is no such a separation, and I just can not live in any other manner. But actually, my life contains more beauty and magic than any creation of mine will ever bear. Before I started documenting these things that happen to me, I’ve been making stuff and living like this for years, not calling myself an artist, it’s just a record of my life. It is up to the viewer to determine what is art. Nature and all that’s beyond it in the universe is the pure, real art that no art gallery, theater or museum will ever be able to host because our own, unique experience makes it the most special art for us. Maybe only music gets close to the mystery of it all.

How did you feel about making a show in an independent art space, can you tell us something about that experience?

K.: I never thought of making an art show, I just enjoy the creation process, grounding me in the present moment. What happens with it all afterwards does not interest me much, but because I was invited to make a show that would  be followed by a week of my crystal healing sessions, I prepared a good healing space to perform it in. I thought that was a good idea. It was marvellous to meet so many beings in the heart center, and see their light and beauty during that week. The event itself was a four hour lecture on all these dimensions I communicate with, which was more typical for a traditional show.

Can you tell us something about your process? What inspires you? Do you speak to angels? Do they influence your creations?

K.: Usually I just feel like there are some things that are suspended somewhere there, waiting for someone to tune in and bring them to manifestation, so I am more a channel for things to take form through me than a creator. I know it could have been anyone, but it happened to me. Of course I get very inspired by the indigenous nations of different cultures, tribes who follow and respect the rhythms of the cosmos. Though the most profound inspiration are the moments of unity with all existence that bring me to an experience of eternity and purest love that I believe is the essence of each atom. I don’t have verbal contact with angels, but I see them as light orbs of different colors of light spectrum and beyond, and there certainly is a communication with worlds within, without, above and below. Spirits of nature, fauna and flora, minerals and these angelic entities show me around, explaining how things work. That is a communication based on a deep trust — listening that is hearing, looking that is seeing and feeling that is knowing.

Did you go to school? How did you educate yourself?

K.: I think that more useful for me was unschooling. I received a very strict, Polish education that kills individuality. After that I needed to erase from my head a lot of harmful data, but along the way I taught myself about everything just by observation of this reality and realities beyond the visible, sense-perceptible world. For example, all my knowledge about mathematics, astrophysics, or any new language I learn is just a download, without much of the learning process. And I have no idea about how to use sewing machines, weaving techniques, cameras, computers, mathematical formulas, grammar of languages I speak. I just get it and do it.

What’s your relationship to possessions and how does this express itself in things you create?

K.: I don’t normally feel attachment to my belongings or things I have created. The Universe knows about it, so my possessions often get consumed by different elements, or just disappear or reappear in the most bizarre circumstances. I often leave things behind or give them away. It’s good feeling to free yourself from objects; it gives more space for your self. Actually, just recently I worked in the forest for many hours, weaving on the looms I made on the flat tree trunks that were cut down. I left all my weavings there for them to experience the cycle of the seasons, growth and death, and just to be. It cheered up the forest too.

What personal dreams do you have for the future?

K.: I don’t know much about the future, I only want to stay happy and live from my heart, no matter the circumstances. I could be of better service to others. But maybe I will learn the language of some exotic birds and plants and fill my life with more of dance and music, rather than with this meticulous handwork, which taught me about the dimension of time.

Are you a witch?

K.: I use healing plants, communicate with animals, and have always had some cats. I’ve seen my thoughts manifest in front of me. I have healed myself from some serious stuff as a kid, heal others when I’m allowed. I have expanded vision, I follow the moon cycles. I live the magic, I make magic, I am magic.

[prolapsarian]

‘Cat Person’ and Character-Analysis

My ill-advised tuppenceworth on 'Cat Person':

There was a peculiar history in the twentieth century in which, in psychoanalysis, the analysis of the ego turned towards an emphasis on quantitative factors (that is, towards an analysis of ego strength and ego weakness) at key moments. It happened in 1921 in 'Mass Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego', the sister book of 'Beyond the Pleasure Principle' now not amid war but instead subsequent social and economic ruin. It happened again in the writings of Reich, Fenichel, and Freud in the 1930s. Indeed, you can see a longer history of this sort of quantitative ego-analysis as significant to attempts understand the Nazi phenomenon reaching through to the late 1940s. And it appears once again in the 1970s. Needless to say, these are turns that have been made necessary - albeit through the darkest and most labyrinthine paths - by social and economic crisis. And more significantly they have come about as those economic crises have instantiated dominant social modes of the hatred of women, not so much by some abstract patriarchy but by new developments of homosociality, bound up in warriorship, male cliques and confraternities. And needless to say too that these developments have prospered in particular in circumstances of male mass-unemployment or the mass fear amongst men of unemployment. In short, this whole analytic nexus is bound up with women at work ("taking the jobs of men"), and how in periods of economic crisis masculinity can triumph through new extra-liberal communal modes of (anti-)social organisation founded on the hatred of women and violence against them, and from which women and their work is excluded. But from a psychoanalytic view, they are also stories about how these "new communal modes" are founded, in truth, on regression.

The great victory of stories like "Cat Person" - and perhaps the reason for its popularity - is that they inaugurate this question in the time of our own economic crisis - and in particular amongst a generation of men who, over the last decade, have graduated university into a collapsing economy. And although this story might speak in more lulling tones than, say, Jelinek did in the 1970s, the violent backdrop is even more extreme: one of Elliott Rodger-style massacres and the mushrooming of nasty 4chan-based chatter about a "beta uprising”, of “pick-up artistry” and the belief that being a “good guy” is the world’s best justification for being a pig in bed. That is, this story asks the crucial questions: “what are the burgeoning modes of the hatred of women amongst the male precariat? And how do they find their violent expressions?” In one particular way, the story’s diagnosis is extremely precise: in the moments in which it dwells on Robert’s fantasy of Margot’s return to a high school romance. Indeed, the present regressions in male mass culture (especially of the American variety) are founded on an almost constant return to schoolyard identifications, and the paired homoerotic sado-masochistic figures of jock and nerd. Just to add, as I will come to it in more detail, this doesn’t mean this should be responded to by a hatred of homoeroticism - which this regression will turn into; nor does it mean kids straightforwardly enjoy being bullied - and raped, symbolically or otherwise - at school; and nor is it to condemn as barbaric either childhood eroticism in general or sadomasochism. But these schoolyard identifications have been hardened by the discovery that they are already so strong that they present the perfect marketing opportunity to mass-cultural producers. This isn’t to deny that there is a long history in American film and television about the fantasy of the nerdy guy who - by dint of cunning - gets with some conventionally hot woman, who is invariably the butt of all the jokes because she is stupid, and therefore apparently deserves everything that this cunning metes out to her. That history runs from Woody Allen through to The Big Bang Theory. But this type of cultural production - by men, for men - is enormously more prevalent now than it has been at any time before, and it both produces and fulfils these regressive tendencies. They remain the most enormous source of profiteering.

I wrote this back in March on these phenomena, and my views haven’t changed so much, but it gives a more *political* view of how new forms of illiberal male violence play out in this scenario, and how the two figures find themselves bound together: “For people of my generation a lot of what is on offer in the way of websites, TV shows, music separates itself along the lines of "nerds vs jocks." Mass culture finds its market in taking sides in an enormous process of regression: marginal pre-pubescence is the scene of eternal fixation. What follows is some crude sociology: it is intriguing to see how this plays out as a collaboration between the two sides in the strains of contemporary misogyny - on the one side the Jockish Trump type, non-consensual hands everywhere, and on the other the Nerdish misogyny that has developed I guess through trends like "pick-up artistry", the hatred of women because they don't love you unconditionally. Maybe this collaboration between these two types, founded on a single type of psychic formation, marks out also the uneasy collaboration of Government and the Internet alt-right, an army of hateful hidden nerds, who think they are probably just using the likes of Trump and Bannon as avatars. But perhaps what is most striking here is the strength of self-righteousness founded on the feeling of oppression long ago, each side by the other. However much the internet warrior might have a nicely paid job and plenty of resources, he feels hard done by in a culture that seeks to perpetuate forever the violence of the school yard. He sees himself as a figure of vengeance, however little he might be oppressed. Mass culture becomes an arena in which the tensions and contradictions of something like a regressive anality are played out, in a world frozen into unambivalent sado-masochism. Be a man, be ego-weak, the TV bellows!”

Part of what has been most reported, and most interesting about Cat Person story has been the establishment of a sort of culture-war in the responses to it. What has been less spoken about, though, is how those responses have been conditioned by the complex of genitality within a mass-culture that thrives on pre-genital identification. What might in fact be the most provocative moments in this story for a lot of the men who have responded are the depictions of the failing penis: “At the end, when he was on top of her in missionary, he kept losing his erection, and every time he did he would say, aggressively, “You make my dick so hard,” as though lying about it could make it true.” What makes this so provocative is that the regressive forms of mass cultural play on the hyper-ambivalence developed in age towards one’s own pre-genital fixation within the culture. What is constantly produced and sold to and by a generation of men are sorts of cultural objects that both catch them in a homoerotic moment and then fantastically - and aggressively, violently - disavow it. This is to say, that today’s regressive male mass culture, despite being homosocial and indeed homoerotic, is at the same time very deeply homophobic. Yeah, that’s an old story from the 1930s too, but it also explains something of why a lot of people get very jumpy about it, especially when the women’s true fantasy is depicted as being with another guy who shares in laughing at the first’s failed genitality. It turns out, with that laughter, that she hates his anal fixation just as much as he does. Not that this is her fault either.

So who, in the end, is to blame? Maybe all of this sounds like a dodge too (or some verbose resistance) - no doubt it to an extent is, and the message of this little story is more straightforward: it tells men to reflect a bit, be more sensitive to how women are feeling; it adds to the perennial refrain that men need to “work on their shit.” And it does this well - I too found myself reflecting. But I worry that this also misses the mark in certain respects - and most extravagantly in its willingness to submit to the prevailing psychological doctrine that all matters of character can be exchanged for questions of behaviour. All of this, I think, raises the question of what we do about prevailing ego-weakness and its violences today. Traditionally in character-analysis the answers have been pretty poor: there is a hope - and one can read is quite clearly in late Freud - that this sort of illiberal male mass violence in crisis can be solved by the “return to work”. But here I can’t help but to think he is wrong. Yes, the experiment in the west of full-employment liberalism did, in effect, reduce the immediate power of male confraternities and armies over society, but it did this by allowing this violence to quietly return to the home, and by pushing women straight back into the unremitting violence of the home too. This is the history of the 1950s and 1960s, and it was not until the next crisis of employment that the pent up rage against it, by those women who had survived it, was able to be given some expression. Indeed, for all of its hopes of some kind of peacefulness, prevailing liberalism in periods of boom most usually simply institutes processes of social repression - privatising violence within the family - where psychological repression leaves off; while the forces of that violence remain intact. Meanwhile other solutions proffered have been “a new olympic games” (Ernst Simmel), new freer forms of communalist and more sexually free lifestyle (Reich), or simply “education” (for an Adorno immured in the post-war boom).

It seems to me that all of these answers are useless in one way or another - and that the culture does truly require a feminist response. One would hope that it would be as psychoanalytically sensitive as it is violent. I guess to invoke all of this history of character-analysis is rather unfashionable too. Not least because these sorts of arguments fell out of fashion because all sorts of terms - for very good reason - fell out of use. Things like “penis-envy” (and as I quietly have suggested here, in many ways I think this was often a misnomer for work-envy), or “repressed homosexuality”. Nonetheless, these sorts of discussions do - even deprived of vocabulary - offer some scope for addressing the problems of how the crisis of our age is rebounding into hatred and violence against women on a mass scale. In any case, basically I'm well up for a fierce critical discussion of ego-weakness and mass culture. F-Scales at the ready.

[manticoremagic]

The Animist Apocalypse-Mad Max and the importance of environmentalism

“Where must we go, we who wander this wasteland, in search of our better selves.” -The First History of Man,  Mad Max: Fury Road, 2015

In post-apocalyptic fiction, signs of an animistic culture are often plentiful in the set dressing; from skull motifs to more subtle expressions of sympathetic magic, to taboos which define when it is safe to travel through an area due to unseen natural forces that demand respect-lest one perish. In these worlds people live in a reality strangled of meaning; stripped of all but the most basic diversions and amusements, choice, and even hope.

Isaac Marion’s post-zombie apocalypse novel Warm Bodies illustrates an America in which people survive by sheltering in huge sports stadiums. Supplementing their diets with vitamin pills and barricaded against outside forces; scouting parties must invade dangerous territory-the former cradle of suburbia, in order to extract supplies.

A sharp cultural contrast to this is the nuclear wasteland of Dimitry Glukhovsky’s Metro 2033 series, in which the last vestiges of humanity eke out an existence in Moscow’s vast and sprawling underground rail network. The people of the tunnels farm pigs and mushrooms and must forever remain vigilant against the mutant creatures that constantly test their defenses; an outwards force pushing inwards. Meanwhile political conflicts tear apart the communities within.

Apocalyptic fiction presents fears for the future unique to the inhabitants of the culture it was born from, but it also has a unifying philosophical theme; what does it mean to be human, and what is the point of being alive? People do not simply fight to live another day; they struggle to nourish their souls with scraps of beauty, love and meaning.

In these inhospitable worlds, the rules for survival have changed; nature is no longer abstracted and the ability for people to adapt the environment has become limited-a dire predicament for anyone from a wealthy post-industrialized culture.

One of the things that makes this genre so appealing to me is that this lifestyle shift usually brings with it a return to an animistic worldview of unity with the natural world.

The recent Mad Max: Fury Road has some beautiful examples of a fictional post-apocalyptic animist culture. It’s a film in which a band of eco-feminists fight the forces of war, patriarchy and greed  against a post nuclear-exchange desert landscape. Also car chases. And explosions.

Between explosions, we get a glimpse of the social order of the War Boys. They ritually scar their bodies with engine schematics, and their medical professionals are referred to as ‘organic mechanics’, displaying an inextricable unity with their vehicles. They have an oral tradition of storytelling in which dying a good death is of utmost importance, combined with a belief in reincarnation and the need to be deemed worthy-a worth  which is determined by their usefulness to their master. A film lush with symbolism, this blending of human and machine is of vital importance-the tyranny of Immortan Joe positions this as a method of control and objectification-as a means to strip away autonomy. People are things, and things are disposable.

The skull motif is ever-present; the skeletal form of Furiosa’s missing arm is painted on the side of the war rig, the sickly war boys are hairless and white, and the very symbol of Immortan Joe’s rule is a blending of the steering wheel and the skull. Skeletons are things, and things do not deserve respect.

When Furiosa learns of the destruction of her childhood haven, she rips off her prosthetic arm and howls in despair. This completes her symbolic rejection of her service to Immortan Joe, which had stripped her of agency and personhood. But just as we are now unable to colonize other planets, there is nowhere left to go; the salt flats extend eternally like the inhospitable emptiness of space.

So our heroes turn back to the Citadel to take back the world. The symbolic relationship between Furiosa and her arm has changed; when she straps it back on, she is reclaiming a right to live in the world cooperatively, interfacing with it with respect, and as a part of her. She is no longer a resource to be exploited. As Nux’s war paint wears off, we see him as an enslaved child, made terminally ill by the folly of dictators. Finally, he is able to find his better self in service of a great and sincere sacrifice. It’s no coincidence the Keeper of the Seeds, member of the resilient and free Vulvalini, tried to save as many plant species as she could-not just crop varieties directly useful to humans. ‘Who killed the world?’ asks Angharad, and the answer is damning.

In these fictional scenarios animism flourishes because there can be no disconnection from the land; it is an actor itself and not merely acted upon. The stakes are always high; the natural world must be respected. So fraught with danger, the apocalyptic landscape represents a world that humans have made almost uninhabitable for themselves as they stare down extinction. Be it over wealth inequality, war, climate change or resource scarcity, fictional apocalypses are almost singularly the result of human hubris.

For me, a core part of my modern pagan animist beliefs is respect, cooperation and balance. The importance of respecting the natural world, as a part of us and not an outside resource should be self evident-if we muddy up our biosphere, everyone suffers. My animism is inherently environmentalistic, but everyone should be concerned with the plight of the natural world, regardless of their spiritual alignment.

Mass-scale, global environmental exploitation needs to be curbed. Let’s hope we can make it happen before the advent of a nuclear wasteland.

[odinsblog]

“As I was watching [Beyoncé’s videos] I felt very conflicted, I felt her message felt very conflicted in the sense that on the one hand she is putting herself in a category of a feminist, but then the camera, it felt very male, such a male voyeuristic experience of her,” Watson said during a conversation with journalist and actress Tavi Gevinson, as published in a 2014 issue of Wonderland Magazine.

LOL. Beyoncé was being overly sexual…for the male gaze…and Bey couldn’t *possibly* have any self agency, but somehow it’s DIFFERENT when the exact same standards are applied to a white woman, right???

No woman, not Emma Watson, not Beyoncé, no one should be shamed for their body or how they decide to effect their feminism, even if they use their body to do so. But the double standards that allow white bodies to be “non-sexualized statements of expression” and “art” while black women are reduced to deviant “sexual objects”…the amount of policing always applied to non-white women is amazing. And white feminists™ love to single out successful black women like Beyoncé.

Once more for the people in the back: Please destroy the notion that feminists have to fit into a neat, perfect little box in order to be considered a “good” feminist. Obliterate the idea that not being “respectable” by white societal norms somehow disqualifies women from being “good” feminists

YES, I’ve read and re-read the entire interview.

1. No matter where Emma ended her interview, her jump off point was problematic. The premise itself - which was not rhetorical - is insulting. Why are white women sO concerned about how Beyoncé dresses to begin with? You could almost get the impression that Taylor Swift or Miley Cyrus never ever danced suggestively, or never wore any revealing clothing at all in their videos…but for SOME reason, white feminists almost never write articles about being “conflicted” with their feminism. Why is that..? Why are white feminists constantly questioning Beyoncé’s feminism but never Taylor Swift’s?

So I submit that this constant “concern trolling” of Beyoncé by white feminists is extremely lop-sided and has its origins in learned (unconscious?) anti-blackness. Gate keeping tests are always “innocently” applied to black feminism in a way it rarely is with white feminists.

2. Okay, so even as I read the article I was trying to cut Emma some slack… I mean, I’m paraphrasing here, but Emma basically said, “Bey reminded us that she was doing it for her husband and daughter”…now who were they again? Obviously Beyoncé’s fans have never once heard of…what were their names again? OH YEAH! Jay-Z and Blue Ivey! Such obscure people. Wow, thanks Emma. Until she pointed that out, I had forgotten all about them and thought maybe…just maybe…Beyoncé might (gulp) consider dating me. 🙄 #sarcasm - Any fan of Beyoncé who is old enough to want to date her *already* knows she has a husband and a daughter and is expecting twins, so that part of the interview is a wash; a non-sequetor. Bey’s fans may fantasize about her, but we all know she’s in a relationship.

Heck, I guess Emma *did* try to give Bey some “credit” by essentially saying that specifically within the narrow, constricting patriarchal bounds of marriage & motherhood, hey, in that context, well then I guess maybe Bey’s video could still be considered empowering after all, right?

Do you see the problem here? The latest self appointed gate-keeper has deemed Beyoncé’s videos as ‘respectable feminism’ mostly because she’s doing it within the acceptable confines of marriage and motherhood. Otherwise, it follows, an unwed (non-white) mother who posts racy selfies or dances suggestively in public is somehow less worthy of being called a feminist.

So there is too much patriarchy, classism and respectability politics quietly hiding (but understood) between the lines of the interview. I honestly believe Emma was trying to come from what she *thought* was a good place, but at best, the interview was a backhanded “compliment” to Beyoncé and Emma is too steeped in privilege to realize that. I’m sorry, but even after re-reading it, it’s still problematic.

The article can be reduced to this:

Discussion: is Beyoncé’s feminism “real” feminism?

Conclusion: since she makes it clear she’s doing it for her child and husband, well then I guess we can approve and grant her access into *our* club of “acceptable” feminists (like Taylor Swift, who we somehow never question).

The people calling her a hypocrite are only pointing to how deeply frustrating it is when white women do the exact same thing that black women do, it’s not met with the same amount of hand wringing and questioning that black feminism is. Suddenly it becomes “empowering.” So this isn’t about bashing Emma Watson as much as it is about calling out white feminism that consistently centers cis, white, heteronormative women who are deemed “classically” attractive, while casting black women as the confused, bumbling sidekicks to the “real” feminism done by white women.

So once again: “Please destroy the notion that feminists have to fit into a neat, perfect little box in order to be considered a “good” feminist. Obliterate the idea that not being “respectable” by white societal norms somehow disqualifies women from being “good” feminists.”

[gcintheme-blog]

Transgenderism and Cultural Appropriation: A Gender-Critical Analysis

An anonymous friend in my inbox (which seems to be a very busy place... I’m new to this platform so please allow me time to decide how/if I wish to publish or reply to those) asked me to write about cultural appropriation. I have many thoughts that will have to be dispersed through a few posts. (The angry hijabis in my inbox aren’t going to happy. Neither are the people who followed me thinking I’m a liberal feminist, but I don’t care.)

Essentially, this post aims to break down the similarities and differences between the trend known as “cultural appropriation” and the ideology behind the transgender movement, specifically behind male humans who self-identify as women. I will explain my reasons for this below.

Let’s start with cultural appropriation, then. Here’s the definition I took from Wikipedia, which I realize can be flawed by I’m trying to retain some sense of neutrality by using the first available option when I Google English search “define cultural appropriation”:

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture. Cultural appropriation is sometimes portrayed as harmful, framed as cultural misappropriation, and claimed to be a violation of the intellectual property rights of the originating culture. Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures' traditions, fashion, symbols, language, and cultural songs without permission. According to critics of the practice, cultural (mis)appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that the "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture.

I want to focus on this part: “The adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context.”

This really gets to the problem with cultural appropriation: Members of a dominant group use cultural elements of another group without the proper respect for where those come from.

For example, I’m Iraqi. Henna is really popular in parts of Iraq, and across Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. My own family has used it before for specific ceremonies, like weddings, but also just for fun sometimes.

Now, henna is has become a trend in lots of places. American women might wear henna to a music festival because they think it’s beautiful. On one hand, it’s flattering that other people think this part of our culture (which is, admittedly, part of our own beauty ritual) something they want to copy.

But, on the other hand, Iraqi people might face discrimination for performing our own cultural ceremonies that Americans can do for fun. For Americans, henna is a fun trend, but for Iraqis, it is a part of our culture. Since the American army has killed so many Iraqis in the recent past just for being Iraqi, you can see where this might be hurtful.

However, I want to stress something here that is not very popular with the liberal feminist crowd. Cultural appropriation is a symptom of a bigger problem. It is a demonstration of existing racial power structures. In other words, cultural appropriation is important in that it can hurt feelings and point to these power structures, but it is not in itself violent.

If no Americans wore henna at Coachella this year, the United States still would have invaded Iraq. If no white people had dreadlocks, black people would still be disproportionately killed by police. If Selena Gomez stopped wearing the bindi, South Asian women would still be called “dot heads.” If no white people wore “Aztec prints,” the empire would still have been invaded and destroyed by the Spanish.

When people are socially, politically, or economically rejected, it is hurtful to then distort their cultural symbols without addressing those problems.

That is why I label the word “colonial” as imported here. In this sense, people from an oppressed culture cannot appropriate the dominant culture. In fact, it should be unsurprising that people act in accordance with the dominant culture, since it is dominant.

I’ll use myself as an example. I partake in a lot of “Western” cultures, from speaking English and Spanish to watching American and British television to wearing Topshop when I have the chance. However, I am not appropriating these cultures because I don’t have the institutional power to do that. Part of the reason many Iraqis know English so well is because of colonialism and invasions by English-speakers. The idea that we could appropriate those cultures is laughable! Iraqis don’t perform Western cultures for fun, but for survival.

As we will later analyze further, this is the same reason the declarations of transmen do not have the same impact on society and its structure as the declarations of transwomen. A woman cannot “appropriate” (this is the wrong word but we’ll get to that too) the demeanor of a man because women do not have the same institutional power to steal the culture of masculinity, which privileges men, in such a way.

But again, appropriate is not the correct word. Masculinity and femininity are not cultures. They are collections of traits that cultures have assigned to people based on their genders. Genders are the social expectations assigned to people based on their sexes. Human males are boys and men and expected to perform masculinity. Human females are girls and women and expected to perform femininity.

Masculinity and femininity can change through different cultures and therefore cannot be cultures themselves. For example, in present-day Egypt, wearing makeup is expected of women. But in ancient Egyptian culture, both men and women wore Egypt to be considered beautiful.

It is the belief of myself and many other gender-critical feminists that men and women should be able to express culturally masculine and feminine characteristics because they’re arbitrary to begin with. There is nothing to suggest biologically (or even historically) that female people should enjoy wearing makeup more than male people. If men feel happy wearing makeup, they should wear it! If women don’t want to wear makeup, they shouldn’t have to!

But we cannot pretend these choices are equal or equally empowering. Women in the West had to fight against the patriarchy for their rights to wear pants in the workplace. Why did they want to in the first place? Because masculine characteristics indicate maleness, which is the dominant sex and carries more power with it.

I’m sure Western men who wear skirts in the workplace (without calling themselves trans) exists, and good for them. But we cannot pretend women’s reasons for desiring to perform masculinity and men’s reasons for desiring to perform femininity are the same. Women have to imitate maleness in some situations to be taken seriously or even to stay safe. Men also have to be “masculine” in order to claim the most of their maleness, but when they choose to perform femininity, it’s not for the purpose of claiming some power they did not have before.

This is because women are not the dominant sex. Women are not more powerful than men. We might have characteristics assigned to us that some men find desirable, and they’re welcome to perform those. For example, crying when you’re sad can actually be a really healthy outlet, and it’s a shame men are told not to cry. Men might even help subvert the current oppressive power structure by doing things like this. But, men have no institutional power to gain by performing femininity.

But here, we reach the major difference between cultural appropriation and transgender ideology. People of the dominant culture who appropriate another culture are not claiming to be members of that culture. Transwomen are men who perform femininity and then claim to be women.

The issue is not men acting feminine, but the declaration that acting or feeling or identifying as feminine makes a person a woman. Feminism has actually been more generous than cultural discourse in how it has actually encouraged people of both sexes to break gender barriers in order to break down the entire system.

Take the Rachel Dolezal case as an example. The problem was not that Rachel Dolezal culturally appropriated. Cultural appropriation is a problem, but people do that all the time. The problem is that she claimed performing certain stereotypes changed her entire identity.

The reason the Dolezal case is exceptional, and made so many people angry, is because she claimed that because she “felt” black and she “acted” black, she was black. It wasn’t specifically the adoption of stereotypes that upset people, but the idea that performing those stereotypes could actually change who she was.

We recognize that is nonsense for a few reasons:

Race is visible. Even though educated people know there is no biological difference between the brains of people with different races (just like there is no biological difference between the brains of people with different sexes) we can still see that society is constructed in many ways around the color of a person’s skin (and other traits that define race), just like we can see society is structured in certain ways around a person’s biological sex. Rachel Dolezal tried to change her appearance and there were great debates (and laughs) on television over whether she was “passing.”

Black people have a socialization that white people just don’t have. Rachel Dolezal didn’t grow up with the idea that her ancestors were slaves in her country, or that they immigrated from African colonies, or that she has to be careful around police because they might suspect her of doing something wrong because of her skin. (Just like men do not have to grow up with the collective conscious that the people of their sex before them couldn’t own property or file for divorce, or have to worry about going out late at night because a man might rape them.)

Liking black culture and embracing black stereotypes doesn’t make someone black. Lots of white people enjoy rap music made by black people about black issues, but they aren’t black and they don’t claim to be. (Lots of men enjoy wearing dresses but they aren’t women and they don’t claim to be.) When black people embrace rap culture they are sometimes called thugs and even killed while unarmed, but white people don’t usually have those problems.

Oppressed people don’t have the option to just stop being oppressed. Black people cannot “identify” as white to stop the police from shooting them. Women cannot “identify” as men to stop men from raping us.

But for some reason, we allow male people to enter into the oppressed group of “women.” We allow them into our women-only spaces, like bathrooms, domestic violence shelters, and women’s universities. We change our language to accommodate them, using terms like “people with vaginas” instead of “women” to describe pressing issues like FGM. We tell them that by “feeling” like a woman and embracing a set of gender roles, they have the same experiences, or are even more oppressed than us.

All of this directly interferes with the liberation of women. If we cannot define ourselves as an oppressed class, or if anyone is permitted to enter or leave that class at will, then women cannot claim we are oppressed. If women cannot name that oppression, we cannot fight the patriarchy.

Transgenderism is not men acting in traditionally feminine ways. It is men saying that these actions, or the desire to do these actions, make them women. This is why it is uniquely dangerous. It frames womanhood as a set of feelings and actions based on those feelings rather than a specific oppression based on biological fact.

People of certain cultures are not oppressed because they “identify” as that specific culture. They are oppressed from the time they are born because society assigns them this “culture” and determines certain social, political, and economic factors through that. When other people then steal that culture for themselves without the associated oppression, it’s rubbing salt in the wounds.

Women are not oppressed because we “identify” as women. We are oppressed from the time we are born because society assigns us “womanhood” and determines certain social, political, and economic factors through that. When other people steal femininity for themselves and claim it makes them women, it mocks the oppression we have been through.