Capitalism's Superiority Complex, how it Manifests in Feminist Desire/Lack of Desire

   Recently, I've been re-reading Jane Sexes It Up, a series of essays examining contemporary feminism in its relation to sexuality. It describes this post-post-feminism (as labeled by Germaine Greer, one of my favorite feminist theorists) that acknowledges a patriarchal society, with all its injustices and inequalities, but nourishes a feminism of women who cannot be politically correct feminists in the context of sexuality, especially within heterosexual relationships. Frequently the essay contributors talk about the lack of sexual identity they have developed as adult women, due to feminism's restricting perspective on rape culture and gender identity; not being able to acknowledge they want it rough, and to feel sexual, not "asexual" as one author puts it.
    This is why an anarcha-feminist perspective is much needed within the world of feminism, apart from feminism being much needed in the world of anarchism.  I notice that these concerns of needing sexual liberation through being a stripper or grabbing the attention of a guy with the use of "femininity", comes out of confusing sex and gender within sexuality. Wanting sex is natural, being sexual is natural. Objectifying yourself in the hopes a man (or anyone for that matter) will look your way is not natural, and is a product of a patriarchal society that gears sexuality towards (white) men's (supposed) desires and not women's. Basing sexuality off of "he's such a man" or "I feel womanly" directly relates to either (a) showing body parts (b) gender roles, or (c) a mixture of the two. Showing sexual interest or being sexy isn't always showing body parts or giggling or objectifying the male or you opting to be objectified.
    Anarcha-feminism rejects gender roles, the idea that there are "feminine" attributes or "masculine" traits dictated by nature. Feeling "feminine" would only mean embracing the character traits that women are stereotyped as having, "masculine" being the perceived character traits of men, all of which are based merely on social conditioning. For instance, I do not believe all women want to be whisked away by Prince Charming, but I do believe people want love and attention from those we desire. Why must desire turn into objectification?
    Desiring an individual sexually does not merely mean physical attraction...even those who claim mere physical attraction must acknowledge that certain status symbols, body types, and accessories one wears provides clues to how a person is, which is why you find a particular type of person sexy and not another. Otherwise it becomes masturbation and objectification. This is where consent comes into play, if you respect a person's boundaries and are not merely in it for self-gratification, but acknowledge the other person's desires even if it is based on just pure bodily attraction, it is not objectification because you act in accordance to another's feelings, restrictions and desires. Anything not in accordance with another's expressed wishes is non-consensual and in my book, sexual assault. Practicing consent would eliminate much of the "I have to show my boobs to receive the sex I want" and seeming contradictions of feminism and desire by eliminating the objectification through verbal communication.
    Gender roles are very much ingrained in our social behaviors, so it is crucial to ask ourselves why we want men (or anyone for that matter) that expect us to be half naked in order to qualify as sexy? Why isn't my intellect sexy or the way I hold myself sexy? I don't want a person in my life that is immediately looking at me just as body and not a human being. The gender roles we are taught to accept, in even the most well-read feminists still exists to some degree, so we must challenge our motives.
    With that said, why do women feel the need to be submissive....or dominant for that matter? Both represent patriarchy at work, telling us there is no equality in sex only submission and dominance. Anarchism is the practice of no slaves or masters, so why should we want to be dominant just to prove women are capable of being "masculine"...which is basically the patriarchal why of saying abuser. When in fact, neither submission nor dominance that is consensual is truly just submission or just dominance - if you are a dominatrix for instance you still have to acknowledge the safe word, and if you're the sub, you have the power to stop any action you do not like. They are guises to play out fantasies that are based around a culture of sexuality that demeans women, or even others who exemplify "feminine" qualities that don't fit into the structured gender hierarchy of the porno-consumer culture that is sex in the United States.
    Look in, for example, a typical stereotype of homosexual relationships; there's the top and the bottom, the  submissive "feminine" one and the dominant "masculine" one. Submission and dominance are synonymous with feminine and masculine, and with true equality, we would be able to function as people without it orbiting around the idea of gender. Even the typical homosexual relationship fed to us through porno culture aka consumerism and media, is just mirroring hetero-normative culture.
    Of course, since there's no other way to get off, all we have are porn stars to show us our bodies and desires, which is manufactured by notions of acceptable and unacceptable sexuality, depending on your race, sexual orientation and body parts. So we practice this porno version of sex or no sex at all because talking about sexuality is deemed unacceptable.
   To practice consent, would essentially eliminate notions of superiority or inferiority but with all the rough (not violent) sex you want. Instead of wanting to be choked or wanting to choke another based on a culture of violence and gender we can create equality in sex. Not that its wrong that it gets you off, but to verbalize your desires, identify them to get to the point of examining them. Violence being a turn on should indicate a deeper psychological issue that stems from the way your sexuality has been formed initially in the first stages of development, either that or it was developed later in life, turning you on as a response to it being naughty or wrong, because sex is naughty or wrong, which is the same reason we don't talk about our desires or use consent. Violence leaks into sexuality because the world we live in is enforced with violence, and war, which is how we prove our superiority aka "masculinity" over resources and compete within the game of capitalism. Eliminating violence in our sex eliminates the gender hierarchy in our personal lives that seems to be causing feminists such a big problem. We must break our attachment to gender roles within sex, challenge the psychological abuse we've been taught that's enforced within patriarchy/heterosexuality, and in the way our abrasive consumer-capitalist cultures thrives in the mirco- and macrocosm. Voicing our true desires beyond the realm of gender gives us potential to create well-rounded people who are not oppressed by lack of sex or exploited by sex within capitalism and immediately threatens the hierarchy of capitalism, aka global white male oppression.  

Ok, rant done.   

Modern Feminism & Pornography (repost)

    Feminism has degenerated into a virtually non-existent schism of pro-porn feminists opressing themselves on the grounds of free speech, merely in opposition of the radical anti-porn, politically correct, feminist police. Radical feminist ideology focuses on redefining gender roles that are not biologically innate, but restricted by society's standards; to use people as commodities fueling white male oppression - a.k.a. capitalism. How would these billion dollar companies sell cosmetics (among other products) to a population of women who weren't trying to immitate some ideal beauty? Patriarchy is prevelent in all aspects of our culture. Even so, some of these "radical" feminists seem to misplace this justified outrage. Why are women still in a position of social inequality when lawfully women and men are equals? Many posit pornography as the source.

    Traditionally, sex was considered inapropriate to discuss, whether openly or privately. Women were grossly uninformed about contraceptives, abortions and the idea that sex could be pleasurable, not just a duty a proper wife should endure. Sex was the legal right of the owner, otherwise known as her husband, to do as he wished, however often, even if it was rape, because she was merely property. Domestic rape became illegal, thus women became the true owners of their bodies eventually ushering in the era of free love - second wave feminism. Women sexually liberated themselves by boycotting the kitchen, shortening their skirts and discovered they too could have pleasurable sexual experiences on their terms and in non-monagamous circumstances. Marriage, to radical feminists, was viewed as slavery; merely a way for men to have an endless supply of sex and servitude.

    After certain legal reforms in the 1970s-80s (e.g. access to birth control) women were on equal footing, legally speaking, and feminism declined. Many noticed women still being victimized and objectified. There was something lurking beneath these new found freedoms of bare bellies and strip pole aerobics. Domestic violence increased and women undoubtedly began the trend of willing oppression, in plain terms, befriending their captors. (Which is identical to the fight or flight response of victims who are abducted and/or raped). Which leaves us to the present situation of popular culture openly degrading women, using derogitory terms for women, pushing sex more heavily than ever in mainstream culture, especially with the rise of hip hop. Pro-porn feminists insist we are being monitored more than ever and our freedom of speech is at stake thanks to the pro-censorship stand of radical feminists.

    Anti-porn feminists see pornography as the embodiment of the perfect union of patriarchy and capitalism; sex being treated as a market as opposed to a natural urge common to nearly every being. Porn, and every other form of media ingrain an image of what a woman is and what constitutes a beautiful, or ideal woman. Duping the masses to adhere to a common belief that a woman must be underweight, have a face full of makeup, enjoy activities labeled "girly" as opposed to "manly" or aggresive and women are not the only victims. Men are encouraged to follow certain criteria as well, although more loosely enforced. A woman with purple hair who wears anything but fashionable ensambles are considered undesirable, or outcasted at best. These ideas are sold to us so we can buy overpriced bullshit we don't need that fuels the money machine of capitalism that keeps us all oppressed. Based on these images seen in porn and elsewhere men expect (at best want) a woman with no hair on her vagina (so she can look prepubesceint) who screams in ecstacy when you bend her over and pull her hair.

    Not everyone adheres to these images nor wants to. People's sexual preferences range similarly to how individualistic one's favorite foods are. Capitalism is categorizing us into rigid boxes of social protocol and porn is adequately representative, despite the blind eye given by pro-porn feminists. Anything involving a woman who is not big-breasted, thin, fucking anally and finishing orally with cum dripping down her chin is considered niche porn. If the film involves a black person, that is labeled interracial, not mainstream, even if it involves the same sexual acts. Asian? That's not interracial, that's foreign. As this implies, porn also encourages rascism not just sexism. If a woman is squirting (a practice unknown by most) or if she isn't completely waxed down to her butthole, that is fetish porn, otherwise known as an uncommon turn on or sexual practice brainwashing the masses to believe in a solid undebatable standard of normal. You are either a "man" or a "woman", blue for him, pink for her (no transgendered folks) and theres even rules and regulations to match your genitals. There are no variations excluding gays, which is barely accepted as it is.

    Anti-porn feminists take this unrefutable logic and fact and twist it into accustory statements such as "all men oppress all women" when in fact, women are doing it to themselves to fulfill a human need to be wanted and loved. These feminists also decided heterosexuality is a social construct, not a default in our sexual behaviors - it's all concocted by patriarchy. These accusations sets women back by creating the defense or backlash of the pro-porn feminists holding on to their recently discovered sexual expression in fear of other women holding their mouths shut in the very way it was made possible for men to enslave women in the first place - through censorship.

   Countless feminists are blinded to this plague, convinced pornography equals rape and fuels violence towards women. It is an act of sexual violence and censorship is the solution, despite the foundation of feminism advocating free speech and sexual liberation to free her from the confines of traditional social roles. Excluding BDSM and specific rape fetishes (a.k.a. and uncommon sexual practice), there is no violence in porn, let alone explicit violence. These women are not coereced into these acts as claimed by the "radical" feminists, they enjoy being either on the giving or recieving end of all the sexual acts including the simulated punishment (more commonly as the dominatrix). These displays do not advocate rape, contrary to the biggest argument anti-porn feminists have, but these acts are deeply rooted in patriarchy which is ignored by pro-porn activists. Being anti-censorship does not mean one should support women being products of manipulation for men even when under the guise of dominance. In short, these women are undeniably legal prostitutes, but it is out of their own free will.

    Women are subjected to the scrutiny of an unrealistic standard of sexuality based on a ficticious demand of what men supposedly want. Sexuality is profoundly diverse and cannot be generalized or contained within the boundaries of what a man is/wants and how women are/should be. Porn exaggerates an illusion telling you what's taboo or weird as opposed to accepted or mainstream. Pro-porn feminists see this as liberation even though gays are being equally discriminated against and women believe they are sexually inadequate based on what they see men whacking off to. The only way to eliminate the problem, or these supposed norms, to let people be truly free and naked is to rid the illusion of right/wrong, sexual correctness/prudence, he/she is to give people much needed variation, especially in the market of sex.  Have women explore the fantasies denied to them, experience orgasms they never knew about and market porn for different tastes, not just ridiculous alternatives that make people feel outcasted between a virgin or whore.

   Feminists of this generation need to see the fruits of our mother's work, really utilize our freedom. Sex is evident in our biology and women shoiuldn't have to feel bad if they are not a lesbian or want to wear a skirt. The only way to educate the public is to show them what they truly want without inhibitions; men and women all ages of all races ethinities engaging in consenting sex. Women should be taught about their bodies and so should men. Encouraging communication between eachother and disregarding normality is key in our fight against white male oppression. Sex isn't the problem, it's the product "sex" being sold to us that causes eating disorders and half-naked women claiming they've been liberated. Capitalism wants feminist against feminist in fear of a crumbling system already on the verge of deterioration. Redefining feminism must be actualized through sexual education, not censorship or vaginal rejuvunation.

Rewilding & Feminism

    Green anarchism is largely critiqued for the commonly linked, controversial, theory/practice of primitivism. Primitivism, to many red anarchists, is met with apprehension and dubbed as poorly thought out, unrealistic pipe dream. This also creates a rift in basic anarchist ideology - should I stay or should I go? Staying within the confines of typical urban civilization for the benefit of others or leaving the concrete jungle for a sustainable eco-friendly community of equals with no slaves or masters?
     Staying behind to make an impact on local politics and influencing others by creating sharings, radical libraries, etc. is not only noble, but in fact, necessary. Food Not Bombs, for instance, would not flourish, or exist for that matter, if there were not individuals within the web of consumer-capitalist society questioning the unquestioning participants of oppression. Anarchism would be exclusive to those already in equal communities off the radar and intellectuals - if everyone agreed with leaving civilization, there would be no presence of anarchists challenging ingrained morals and ideologies.
    This logic is based on the belief that people are ignorant, either purposefully or against their will (or a mixture of both).  The main objective of anarchism is to create a society of equals without centralized government or hierarchy, based within the premise of individualism. Keeping these two basic beliefs that are universally accepted by anarchists in mind, is it ethical to convert people to your recipe for revolution, like Christians converting folks on the street, even against their will, or for their own benefit by force? If as an anarchist, you are keeping true to individualism which is just as much practice as theory, the whole basis for decentralization of power, and a word rightly used interchangeably with freedom, how would you be able to achieve the over all objective without force?  
    In my personal opinion, I believe it is foolish to stay in the hornets nest, suffering and participating in the destruction of our ecosystems and deterioration of personal freedom. Having the option to actualize freedom, equality, sustainability, etc. and not utilizing the opportunity, is, again, foolish. Staying within capitalism slowly decays our planet - no matter which way you slice it, money is not sustainable. Not only that, but civilization has perverted our morals and psychological state. Not many of us know how to obtain resources without a store, or dumpster for that matter, leaving us disconnected from the environment that is supporting us. Money itself has contributed to the destruction of the nuclear family, most of us with deep Freudian complexes stemming from lack of connection with our mothers and fathers. This is why green anarchism is the only feasible solution to our economic ruin, moral deterioration and psychological abuse.
    I have my qualms, of course, with some aspects of primitivism. Rewilding, as far as harmony between us and the planet is essential, but many take it too far not realizing when we were hunter gatherers, it was survival of the fittest. Keep in mind hierarchy stems from one person having more resources or strength, using it as leverage or power, people abusing the resources for their own cut, then fighting among one another out of selfishness. Strength, of course, would rank men as more useful than women, in fact, this is where basic sexism comes from and why sexism is the fundamental discrimination and not racism, for example. Government does protect you from being harmed by another, at least in theory, promoting a value system previously enforced by religion, now nonexistent in the United States. With the development of these notions, we can remove ourselves from the idea of government or hierarchy and apply it in the wild, which technically, in the correct use of the term, is civilized.  So a successful primitive society would have to be a gender-neutral society, which in turn, must be a society that will not value one character trait over another, for instance physical strength over gardening, this fundamental thinking is what creates hierarchy. This would automatically deem children, seniors and people with physical or mental disabilities inadequate.  In short, I don't think we should be de-evolving but re-evolving, apart from this gender-ized evolution that is dependent on greed to survive. It would take work to make sure a successful primitive society does not degenerate into hierarchy within a few generations, but feasible within the realm of feminism.
 

 

       
    

Native American - Lenape

This is the tribe my mother's side of the family is descended from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape

Circle A Rant

    I was on anarchistnews.org  and there's frequent heated discussions on anarchism, what that means to you and what kind of anarchist are you. So many comments are dedicated to attacks on people's personal beliefs and theoretical debate that I felt it was appropriate to r@nt about how I honestly feel about the theory of anarchism, without quoting some dead political writer from the 1800s. From the power of my own experience, logic and reasoning, I am a green anarchist.
    In order to address the practice/theory of green anarchism, I have to address anarcho-communism and the libertarian  roots of anarchism. To believe in a theory that was relevant in the 1800s and early 1900s and not modify its action or meaning, I believe is ignorant and elitist. Elitist only for the fact, that individuals quoting these Kropotkins and such are putting academia over action; making anarchism academic as opposed to practical or common sense values. This creates more hierarchy and limits anarchism to either book nerds or to college folks who are mostly middle class white kids who were bored with name dropping Marx.
    Nonetheless, I realize not all anarcho-communists are involved in one-up-man-ship and genuinely believe in an ideal government structure. That's where I disagree, simply because there is no ideal government, the common people (at least in the U.S.) will not have a revolution or situation to even begin to talk about an ideal government, therefore anarchism, to me, is about creating non-hierarchical, non-oppressive alternatives to our current system (outside the capitalism of the United States, specifically) because we cannot change other's beliefs or this government (to any reasonable degree). Anarchism seems to me more like a here-and-now approach as opposed to a let's hope for a revolution - here's-my-ideas-I've-already-written-a-book-about approach.
    The anarchism in the streets, feels more symbolic as opposed to actually doing something. The only action that is realistically being accomplished is putting the idea of anarchism as an alternative (or any alternative for that matter) in the consciousness of the mainstream public. I believe in order to right now actually have a non-hierarchical and non-oppressive alternative, it would inevitably have to not participate in capitalism at all to create equality. In order the achieve this, you have have to remove yourself from capitalism and this society and live off the land as much as possible. No, this doesn't mean you have to live like cave-people, just sustainability... meaning eliminating capitalist treats or tendencies. So if you aren't the type willing to leave your x-box, maybe communism is right for you. If you don't want to be apart of nature, then you would probably prefer capitalism, so think twice about starting your revolution that won't happen.
    Ecological concerns are anti-capitalist concerns - this is how big corporations are able to manipulate resources for continual production, this is how poor countries stay poor and powerless, this is how oil wars are possible, this how the public can be sedated by consumer gratification NOT RELIGION (which is outdated anyway)  and how patriarchal systems are encouraged to exploit immigrants and women for low wadges which in turn spawns racism, sexism, ageism, you name it. To me, putting sexism, animal rights and environmental concerns behind economic concerns is ignorant to what capitalism is and how it thrives. Creating a sustainable community beyond consumer brainwashing, academic brainwashing, media brainwashing and economic chess-games would be the only way to live autonomously and is only feasible within the ideology and action of green anarchy. Like I said before, even within action, the only thing that's really being accomplished is the idea of true equality being put out there to the public in hopes the morals and ethics of the public will change, which is really the only lasting effect; the laws will be changed, new pipelines will be created even after one is fought off. So even if feminism, for example is only "micro" politics and not the larger reality of capitalism/power, wouldn't it have a greater lasting effect than fighting a war that has never begun?
    I can't change the way others view the world. I can only live how I want to live, that's why I'm going to the countryside to create and take part in an autonomous community so we can begin to try to heal the damage on our psyche inflicted by capitalist civilization.