9

Anarcha-feminism is a double term, and implies some not all anarchists are truly what what they claim

Submitted by Xesau in Anarcha_Feminism

Anarchism is the process of identifying hierarchical structures, questioning their legitimacy, and if it cannot justify itself, abandoning it and replacing it.

Patriarchy is a form of hierarchy that cannot justify itself, and therefore it should be abolished. This fits exactly with the normal anarchist definition. Any anarchist should therefore be a feminist (egalitarian; anti-patriarchy), and thus anarcha-feminism is a double term.

Sadly though, the fact that anarcha-feminism exists means some people who call themselves anarchist make an exception for patriarchy. This is what is called brocialism.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

-11

lustysociety wrote

Whenever I read the word feminist I think about angry violent frustrated unfair women.
Whenever I read about black lives matter I think about angry violent frustrated unfair black people.
Probably they have a reason to be angry and frustrated.
The large public regards them as weird fringe cases for good reason as well.
In West-Europe, any discrimination is forbidden by law.
That some feminists declare anarcha-feminism as a thing does not mean that other anarchists or non anarchists enforce or even recognize patriarchy in their daily life.
Some women even like the patriarchic role play and would not chose a man that does not play well his role (strong, opinionated, selfish for himself and his family, earning more than her).

9

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

well if you think feminists are "t angry violent frustrated unfair women." and black lives matter are "angry violent frustrated unfair black people." well you are probably quite ignorant to say the least... if not sexist and racist.

also 'any descrimination is forbidden by law" big ass LOL at that, like making something illegal does fuck all to solve the problem (hey do you know what anarchism is?)

4

Xesau wrote

Your definition of patriarchy is a little shaky.

Some women even like the patriarchic role play

Patriarchy is not "role play," it's the social hierarchy where women are below men just for being female. It's not voluntary. When women voluntarily submit themselves to men, that is not patriarchy. When it is not voluntary (e.g. because of discriminating laws or social disapproval), it is.

5

zod wrote

They basically think 'patriarchy' means voluntary domination for sexual gratification.

3

ziq wrote

And they think when you're angry at marginalization it means you're being unfair.

2

tanattyn wrote

When women voluntarily submit themselves to men

Oh, goddess save me, I fucking quit. I quit. Y'all are on your own.

3

Xesau wrote

I don't think that's what happens either. I was just making a point to @lustysociety about his views on patriarchy, and included that line to make the argument technically sound.

5

tanattyn wrote

Patriarchy theory in modern discourse is usually presented as the idea that men form a political class that exploit women as a subordinate class. And this person is cleverly pointing out a problem in that theory: it doesn't explain women that prefer patriarchy to feminist struggle, and I'll explain why his objection shouldn't be entertained at all.

Yes, men generally act in the interests of men as a class, in capitalism. But a class made of almost exactly half of a society wouldn't develop on its own. If everyone has a significant ability to make and use arms, men wouldn't have enough of an advantage over women to gain much supremacy without causing so much destruction to their society as to not be worth it. Male supremacy exists, obviously, however, and this is because it's not the full story.

For patriarchy to maintain itself, there has to be competition between men, and an increasing monopoly of violence awarded to the men that either compete better or otherwise acquire the results of successful competition. The other end to this is a handful of men, straight men included, being forced into sex work (which the culture is quite aware of, see My Private Idaho, prison rape culture, etc), and a few boys being raped or even sex-trafficked. Also there must a handful of women being held above most of what is done to any group of woman by men, or the biggest losers between men by other men. The Queen of England is the prime example. Liberals will defend patriarchy with the women that would suffer more by attacking the system than by enduring what they must suffer by it. And so they mystify the pleasures they share with these women, at the expense of women and a handful of men, in this ideal of women "volunteering" for their subordination. And by this sharing they justify also the pleasures they have at the expense of the voluntary women along with women as a class. This is also however just a function of competition between men.

Rich men know that sex with a woman that is much closer to truly consenting to sex with him, is going to give the rich men more pleasure, it's psychological. But they stay rich men out of fear of being turned into poor men by others. So they keep both the wage gap, and keep most men's livelihoods so precarious that women can't be bothered to fuck them without, i.e. in the lumpen situation, pure coercion (trafficking) or a sex-work-or-starve life situation. They also have to violate and isolate women from men and each other so much that most lumpen women can't get and keep a job, or sell drugs etc. And this, again, is such shitty sex for men, and drugs are so destructive in a poor person's psychology, that it's not enough to console them and a lot of terrible shit happens between lumpen men so they aren't just destroying themselves. In fact if they all did just self-harm or stop fighting (i.e. the gang peace resulting in the police crackdown that the LA Riots were in turn a response to), patriarchy and capitalism would collapse.

It's all circular reinforcement, too. Without class divisions between men, they wouldn't be trying to turn sexual reproduction or drugs into painkillers or to psych them up to succeed in the competitions so they can get more money to get more sex/drug/etc painkillers, etc. And if they weren't setting women at each other's throats, it would all fall apart too. And it's even more circular cause again, if everybody, or just all women, decide to stop doing all this, cause they found a better solution all at the same time and were just, done with the rest, here come the cops and even more than the cops to set Hell back up. The sexual and economic Hell of the hood and the massively impoverished nation, is the hell upon which the Virgin Mary herself, and the Queen of England and the wives of the billionaire men are made.

So I'm done hearing this bullshit about BDSM, happy housewives/call-girls in the suburbs, femme-as-inherently-revolutionary and "empowering" women's products, and false (secretly, terrifyingly oppressive) opposites to these like TWEF/SWEF nonsense or little mock-revolutions like androgyny-as-inherently-revolutionary (which just end up becoming reiterations of class privilege between women) ... and all other distractions from the brutal, naked competition in capitalism, and maximizing brutal, naked, clear-sighted struggle against capitalism.

[edit, addendum: Yes, I did just imply what you might have noticed, but also another thing. Perfect sexual consent I believe is impossible in a situation where no relationship is without the lack of trust and mutual goodwill and non-coercion inherent in capitalist relations. And the other half of that is that the anti-capitalist must necessarily always push relationships toward that perfection. To do otherwise can only tongue-in-cheek be called manarchism/brocialism, when actually it cannot be anything but pro-capitalist effort in the end, since patriarchy is extricable from economic competition. These MRAs have no intention of liberating boy sex trafficking victims and hustlers, out of fear this would eliminate their rights to rape women which they've won from both women and other men. In fact, they are intensely, aware, that they are the most misandrist group of people on the planet by far. It's a mixture of relative privilege, and being exceptionally possessed by extreme fear of other men - domestically and fear of other patriarchal powers - as well as sometimes a deathly fear of vengeance from women, that prevents them from being proper leftists.]

-5

lustysociety wrote

You are right that I have not read much about patriarchy.
The reason is that I do not recognize patriarchy as an important problem in my environment.
IMO the submission, in whatever form, of women in West-Europe is either voluntary or an unfortunate drama due to children, money or other personal constraints.
I see neither law nor culture nor media promoting women as inferior or obedient.
If anything, I see women more often presented as the more intelligent and social and hardworking "gender".
I will not talk about Islam and other non european cultures because this might to lead further unrelated discussions.

Anyway, thanks for staying calm.

3

DeathToAmerica wrote

Anarcha-feminism and liberal feminism have little to do with each other.

You use the word 'unfair' to describe feminists and black people, but you fail to realize that women and minorities are treated unfairly by society. Them calling out this unfair treatment doesn't make them unfair. Wanting equality is not an unfair request.

-2

lustysociety wrote

I used the word "unfair" not for women or minorities or black people in general.
I used the word "unfair" to describe the persons I think about when I read "feminist" and "black lives matter".
I meant unfair in the sense of generalizing and biased.
The responses confirm my expectations also with regard to angry and violent and even surprise me by their discriminating and insulting nature.
It seems to me that those feminists (and also many anarchists) are living in their own imagined social prison instead of living their life.
Again, the societies in West-Europe condemn discrimination and penalize discrimination harshly by law.
I guess most anarchists on Reddit and here are only interested in bullshit flamewars, dusty books, old war fronts and the next daily meaningless outrage.
I remember the week long climax of so called anarchists because of the brutal and coward punching of Richard Spencer; a meaningless guy of which I had never heard before.

6

______deleted_ wrote

How are black lives matter supporters biased? I don't really follow. And how is punching a fascist a cowardly act? He preaches hate and intolerance and if he had his way, anyone that doesn't look like him would be killed on sight.

-4

lustysociety wrote

"unfair" and "biased" is my immediate expection and mental association and not reality or my imputation or my opinion of a specific group or person.
Truth is, I did never investigate who is behind BLM. I just got a glimpse of the riots and the talks in the main media.
I guess I have encountered too many statements in school, the media and the internet with open or subtle accusation of white people and especially white men (sex, sexual preference and skin color as characteristics) of being responsible for the pollution of earth, poverty, murder, war, arrogance and discrimination.

Regarding Spencer, I do not like violence against opinions and speech.
AFAIK he did not punch or kill anybody and I have never read that his goal is to punch or kill anyone.
I do not think that all preferences and opinions of all or even most persons can or should be reduced to the same. Especially not by violence.
I find it sad and discouraging that anarchists on reddit:

  • are reacting in joy to the violence to an IMO innocent person.
  • are reacting so strongly about that event because nothing else happens for or by them; they are limited to posting, arguing, accusing and reacting. Maybe anarchism is not something to build upon in the real world but just a topic to argue about.
2

ArbitraryHuman wrote (edited )

"are reacting in joy to the violence to an IMO innocent person."

Perhaps that's because said "innocent person" is not so innocent as he might appear to you.

3

DeathToAmerica wrote

I meant unfair in the sense of generalizing and biased.

Biased against what?

The responses confirm my expectations also with regard to angry and violent and even surprise me by their discriminating and insulting nature.

You're discriminating against and insulting Black Lives Matter supporters and anarcha-feminists on the anarcha-feminist sub, what did you expect would happen?

the societies in West-Europe

Capitalist imperialist warmongering societies are hardly worth emulating.

I guess most anarchists on Reddit and here are only interested in bullshit flamewars, dusty books, old war fronts and the next daily meaningless outrage.

It's not meaningless, you're arguing the laws in Western Europe somehow prove that women and minorities aren't discriminated against. You sound like a liberal.

the brutal and coward punching of Richard Spencer

So now you're crying for a literal fascist?

-1

lustysociety wrote

I wrote my initial post because I do not associate good things with feminists (especially not european feminists in 2017) and thus I do not qualify myself as feminist eventhough I support the main goals of feminists that are already achieved in West-Europe, IMO.
The replies I got were neither a pleasant surprise nor did all respect even the original feminist goals.
Quotes from tanattyn:

  • "Rich white cishet able women like patriarchy, so please don't smash it", cries the liberal.
  • inb4 "you are just a troll", "you have presented no reasoned argument therefore patriarchy wins forever and infinitely", etc
  • sighs Come back when you've trained more, noob.
  • I'm afraid I do not understand your continued existence, liberal.

Then she explains her view of patriarchy, capitalism, liberals and men.
I can not follow her thoughts and vocabulary there either.

4

tanattyn wrote

I don't want to research feminist discourse at all before I tell everyone "feminism bad biased etc Q.E.D.", I just want to make people that have, feel like shit. In fact I want to pathologize and publicly shame people that do know women's issues, and pollute the discourse with unchecked emotional opposition.

Noted.

3

tanattyn wrote

"Rich white cishet able women like patriarchy, so please don't smash it", cries the liberal.

-1

lustysociety wrote

I am afraid I do not understand your reply.

5

tanattyn wrote

inb4 "you are just a troll", "you have presented no reasoned argument therefore patriarchy wins forever and infinitely", etc