A Woman's Syndrome: a poem accompanied by my radical watercolors showing

A Woman's Syndrome

A women's syndrome:
nutrient deficient love,
no matter what your portion size
or whose spies lied
between your thighs.

For our own minds aren't minded,
a crime scene polluted by blind men
as we mind them.
Pet them.
Pat them.
Let them give us a pat on the back
for making his favorite dinner
as you feast on the least
thoughtful after-thoughts
the milk drained from our teets...

Due date late, his mistake
your cross to bear.
Eve of fate.
The first birthday cake -
your daughter's prison
in the Gender Lake;
pool of cut of jeans,
pink ribbons
and diet treats.

That's how the war continues.
Walking the shattered streets
with our mother's broken feet.
Broken dreams -
inherited defeat.

Now we should eat
our cake
while the men easy bake
with our leftover bait.
Win this debate
head high, i wait
with my sisters and their mothers.

The Dark Knight: Forecast & Weather Patterns (an @nalysis)

    I know, I know. Bane is Zerzen-esque. This entry is along the same lines as the anarchistnews.org perspective, except this is a nerd-ed out detailed analysis of the coolest movie I have seen in a theater to date. So give me a chance despite me not having a fancy piece of paper that says I'm allowed to focus my thoughts on such trivial matters. This movie was clearly about Occupy and why it failed. Here it is - The Forecast.

     This movie starts out with the cover up of Harvey Dent. (Bear with me I'm using a plot summary to help speed this up). Harvey Dent is the socially acceptable version of Batman. He thinks he's fighting for justice but while fighting with his last breath, it corrupts him. Then, via Joker, becomes Two-Face (in case you didn't see the film before this one). Why two-faced? On one side he is the hero Harvey Dent, on the other he is the very thing that he hates, corruption and crime. Batman is similar because although he has very clear cut morals, he is still going against the law to do what he feels is right. Essentially Batman is a criminal, which is how the government and majority of Gotham feels; he has alot in common with Harvey. So Harvey Dent's character is paralleled with Batman. (i.e. what is socially acceptable, what is not? what are morals? is the law ethical?) This is why I dissected this movie on anarchist principals - aren't anarchists the ones who essentially fight for justice while simultaneously opposing the law?
    The whole controversy in Gotham is why Commissioner Gordon felt it was necessary to cover up for Harvey when he was a murderer. Why? Because Harvey is the law, the people need to trust in the law or else everything could spiral out of control. (Sort of like what our government tries to do now). If they trust Batman, who was criminalized by the state, people could get funny ideas. Plus, people are morons.
    So, in the meantime, Wayne Enterprises is investing in clean energy. How merit-able Bruce Wayne! Aren't you the hero/billionaire? As you can see, Bruce has a hard time dealing with the fact that the police can't be trusted, the general public is brainwashed, and the fact that he's a billionaire in good with high officials, so he overcompensates by trying to do something good. If you can't change politics from the outside, you should be able to change it from the inside, right? Wrong! This is what the Occupy movement was about, what it failed to recognize, and what the public fails to recognize. It also happens to be the plot device for this epic movie. Let's continue...

 
    The thing with the sustainable energy project, is it's made with nuclear technology. So, if in the wrong hands, it would be disastrous, when, in fact, it was designed to help people live peacefully. This goes along with the whole dual-identity thing that Harvey and Bruce have going on. Even though something is meant to be for good (or your intentions for instance) it doesn't mean the outcome will be good. This is the grey area of ethics and morality this movie is trying to show and what anarchism is all about. Bane, who wants control of this power, also has good intentions. To have people live peacefully, instead of being moronic sheep. This is the "Zerzen-esque" parallel that Graeber mentioned, because in theory, if green anarchists actually achieved their goal of rewilding, even a city, it would have disastrous outcomes. Like for instance, those who didn't give a rats ass about the environment and loved sipping on lattes and raping women in the first place, so your whole theory that sounded good on paper is actually attacking you now. (Which, although I am a green anarchist, this is theoretical and in accordance to the movie, and what it seems to express). In Bane's attempt to help civilization, that he also hates (there's that duality again), he is actually destroying the city and becoming militant which is the antithesis of what he initially wanted.  Which is also how some green anarchists like to approach helping people (i.e. Green Nazis).

 
    When Bruce finds out he's bankrupt, thanks to my favorite character of all time, Selina Kyle (aka CatWoman, but she is not referred to that in the film), Bruce suddenly sees things a bit differently. Like how corrupt money is. Not to mention how Selina, seemingly a criminal (after all she is breaking several laws for that necklace), is actually a morally intact person who only steals from those who can afford it. That would be the typical "I only steal from large corporations"-anarchists and Batman would be the one on a morally high horse who never steals because he doesn't think stealing on any level is good; but will still vandalize property. When he meets Selina, he obviously falls for her, because they're both psychopaths who dress up and break the law. All she wants her identity erased so she can live peacefully outside the system upon realizing she can't keep stealing, she needs to lay low. Sound like anyone you know? Conveniently for my analysis, they all wear black. Thank you Christopher Nolan!
 

    That's about when Joesph Gordon Levitt comes into the picture (seems like he's in a ton of movies these days) and he knows everything. Not only that, he was an orphan just like Bruce and totally idolized him from the time he was a kid and his childish obsession continues into his adulthood, into his profession. That's actually what inspired him to be a cop. A good guy. He wanted to impact people the way Batman had, so he's adopted the same strong ethical code Batman has, and thinks he can help from the inside - like Bruce Wayne. That's a delusion that gets dispelled at the end of the film. His character is a key role because he becomes Robin/Night Wing, so he as well as every single character in this movie, parallels the Dark Knight and his moral evolution. He represents naive youth. He's trying to fill the role Batman had, by helping those that truly need it - eventually stumbling upon the fact those who are there to help (kinda like cops) aren't doing their job, in fact, they don't care. The whole idea of "I can be a good cop" is a farce, and at the end of the movie he throws his badge away to become Night Wing. Following in the shadow of his hero, Batman, throughout the film this question is posed as they mirror each other's steps "Can you work inside the system and still make a difference?" Really, they are just delusional and won't come to terms with reality. The innocent people of Gotham they love so much and are trying to save are actually morally corrupt, just like the law. Most of the time they're too busy trying to save the people from themselves.
    This poses a moral conundrum for all the characters (excluding Selina Kyle, because she is in no way trying to be a vanguard, she's in it for herself, her own gain) now that they are starting to realize how corrupt the system AND the citizens of Gotham are. Why are they trying to save them in the first place? Can justice truly prevail? Are people doomed to make their own mistakes over and over again? How can one be truly happy within all this chaos? Can you be happy living apart from society? Is that feasible?

    Selina Kyle is like the anarchist that is actualized in thought, practice and theory. She has come to terms with society and it's flaws and has decided her coarse of action based on experience of juggling two very different personas - Selina the socialite living within the system/ the cat burglar against the system that is disgusted by Gotham's well-to-do. Now, believe it or not, no one with such moral opposition to the system of 1% versus the 99% can conform their actions to project their radical ideology in their day to day life and peacefully live within that same society. That society doesn't want you, and you don't want it.  So like many anarchists who want to change the system, but cannot, and keep finding blockades in their struggles, eventually giving up because of all the problems from the law, neighbors, your relationships, your child, etc. You have to make a decision. Will you continue on to make a point despite the cost of your happiness/peace, extract yourself from society altogether, or go with the flow so to speak, i.e. give in to capitalism?
    Both Alfred, one of my favorite Batman characters, and Selina, are two sides of the same coin - reason and experience. They both understand the ethical dilemma of Batman (and what he represents) and the need to just live life in peace. Everyone deserves that, you can't save other's from themselves like everyone is trying to do by dressing up in costume. That's why Selina is never addressed as Cat Woman in the movie. She is who she is all the time. No fake identities to save her from from going to jail or to save her reputation to get a decent job. The only difference between the two of them is they represent different options that anarchists eventually face: Alfred = giving in to capitalism and becoming a producing member of society despite being knowledgeable enough to oppose it, and Selina = getting off the grid and living on the outskirts of society and not worrying about other's economic issues she can't fix by robbing the rich.
    This is the green anarchist problem: stay within society to help it become sustainable and equal, or give up on it because it's not going to change (at least not anytime in our future) and just live in a nice hut, grow your own food, etc. During this development, Batman still not knowing what to do upon Bane's rise in power, is making last attempts to justify his Bruce Wayne/ Batman lifestyle that is for the "good of the people", he let's Tate take control of the nuclear energy investment because she seems trustworthy. Plus, if you haven't seen the movie, Bane has control of the energy, he just needs a scientist (like Tate) to activate it and create some sort of death threat so people will be scared enough to do what he wants.

    Bane is the vanguard, UnaBomber person who honestly has a point, but doesn't realize his ways of proving that are psychotic. He gains the city's trust by showing how the police aren't on their side and Harvey Dent was not who he was portrayed as. Commissioner Gordon had a speech all written out that Bane took (score!) and read it out loud to the public. Now, Bane is painted as having a secret motive because they aren't clear as to why he wants everyone scared into REAL freedom. As you watch scenes with Bane, you start to realize he is a pretty nice guy who had some harsh stuff happen to him being raised in a prison and all. But...that is proven to be assumption that is incorrect. HAHA! (more on that later). He wants people to be free, because he honestly feels people are sheep who deserve the right to have a choice. What he doesn't realize, is how naive he is. In fact, like many anarchists (and pro-authoritarians) proclaim in their theories, when the prisoners were released because they are just victims of society and circumstance according to us good-hearted folks, they start killing, raping and creating havoc for those who they felt were responsible for their life decisions. You know, CEOs, politicians and rich old women.

    Cillian Murphy (a great Irish actor who played Scarecrow in the first Batman; another awesome comic book character I wished this movie elaborated on...) happens to be the judge, and if you knew he was Scarecrow in the first film, (you do, cuz I just told you) the craziest of the crazy are now making judgments on the people who were imprisoned by society - giving them the option of death or death by trying to escape. Nice. Bane thinks this hilarious, just like myself, and continues on believing this is what people want, they just don't realize it yet. The truth of the matter is, Bane thinks his motives are pure, but they aren't because he is actually the son of Ra's al Gul (Liam Neeson, another Irish actor, from the first film), so it's tied in with his need to actualize his dad's vision. That's why he imprisons Batman in the prison he grew up in - BUT WAIT! That's not his dad, as revealed in the film, Tate is his daughter...that's who is behind it the whole freakin' time. The reason why no one suspects her and trust so much is because she's a smart woman, in a man's world of business. In fact, Bruce has no clue because he's somewhat of a closet chauvinist. So that's why I appreciate that aspect of the film. The men are so much on their high horses they don't suspect that even for a moment that the pure motherly, smart Miranda Tate is a conniving backstabber, and Selina Kyle who's such an untrustworthy burglar who turns Batman in, is actually sweet as pie. It's all too easy for them to manipulate the situations to their advantage. Good for them!
 

    All the while Batman is in the Ra' al Gul prison watching the people of Gotham going out of control like some movement just happened (ring a bell?). He does have the option to leave, after all there is a big opening at the top of the prison someone escaped through (only once) and it was a child, whom Batman believes is Bane, because he is still completely ignorant that a woman could be doing this.  He is being kept alive by some monks, because in Bane's words, he has to have hope of escape to truly suffer. So Bruce is just waiting around for something to light up so he can finally make the connections to what Bane was unintentionally alluding to. It has something to do with (a) hope, (b) his unrecognized motives that have to do with Ra' al Gul, (c) escaping, and (d) a mass movement.
    The thing is and what I'm trying to conclude by tying together all these characters and motives and cultural analysis is that Bane, like anarchists in general, has strong ethics that unless forced upon the general public, will only be actualized in small time setting. Why? Because people have their own individual problems and motivations that they fail to recognize that have alot to do with how they are approaching things like activism, personal relationships, political theory, etc. Which makes it impossible for anyone to be on the same page. We are all individuals, and that is what the intention of anarchist principals and practice are supposed to respect at all times. But when you start to interact with society, with all the different types of people with different views, desires, and aspirations, we ultimately dismiss the possibility that we were wrong to think we have the best morals that make the most sense. We are only in control of our own lives, not everyone else's and we need to make decisions based on that. Like Alfred and Selina.
    Bruce eventually comes to this conclusion by putting things back to the way it was, just as messed up as before, becoming the martyr of the movement by faking his suicide, because he just loves society so much. When in fact, he realizes he can't be a billionaire who cares about orphans and pretend he's doing so much to help the world, when in fact, like the nuclear sustainable energy, that started with good intentions, his fascade developed into something reckless based on personal motivations and ego. People need hope not to suffer, but to balance the duality of their lives without being hypocrites.  
    That's why Bruce and Selina in the end run off to Italy with Alfred's recommendation, off the grid, and start living a happy life. He now sees he was pretentiously making himself the hero for a lost cause at the expense of his happiness. It's like Occupy movement because the intentions weren't clear, it was angry and all over the place. Occupy eventually fizzled out because people lost hope. The point of the film, as symbolized by Robin/Night Wing is you need to continue hoping, and trying as much as you can. People need to feel a revolution could happen if they wanted it. Which it could. The truth is though, we don't know what's good for everyone else.

No, Objectifcation is Not Considered a Compliment

    Relevence of a feminist essay comes from genuine experiences. No pretenstion, no scholarly exposition of what women theoretically should want or what utopias we can dream up as we clean up the messes of patriarchal society. Some of the best examples of sexism come from other women's mouths.
    I made a comment, to an undisclosed person, along the lines of "I'd rather be pale and pasty than have a fake tan [or sunburn]" and was subsequently accused of feeling self-conscious about "being pretty". The reasoning was that since I do not appreciate men hitting on me, I do not like to wear makeup, I shave my legs about once a week and also (I'm guessing) I do not dress myself in typical mainstream attire, I must have a fear of pretty-ness.
    Offensive as it was, I did not try to argue about the myth of beauty and what constitues 'pretty' in reality physically and mentally with/out consumer-culture. I defended myself to some degree, but sometimes it's more beneficial to talk to a wall.
    Confidence about one's appearance is not dependent on making it a superfical fixation nor is it dependent on what other people's force-fed perception of beauty is. People look beautiful naturally without gimmicks, clown makeup, expensive accessories and in very unique, indivdual ways. Stop trying to be a Barbie and then making everyone else feel bad for not being a Barbie. These are unrealistic expectations that few can achieve, and are irrelevent to the broader scope of existence. I would rather be a humanitarian than a super-model. Neither do I want a man in my life who's relationship with me is based around my appearence, (which if you're belief of beauty comes from pop-culture deteriorates in your mid-thirties) as opposed to my character traits (read: intelliegence, humor, kindness, etc.).
    Keep in mind, this ideal beauty being sold to us through advertisements/consummerism/media is coming from big time companies owned by white men that have political influences that keep perpetuating the myth that women are so stupid because they care more about superfical shit than the myriad atroscities that are going on in the world and would rather starve and buy anti-wrinkle cream at risk of death or cancer than to read a book (besides Twilight) - which is not always true and I'm an example of that.
    Undisclosed person, if you are reading this, that's why I only shave my legs like once a week, and I don't care.

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.
 

 

       
    

Queer, A Coversation

• Monique  
  

  I don't like societies labels on sexuality, i.e, bi-sexuality, lesbian, gay, hetro. They are a symptom of a heirarchal system that seeks to classify and degrade based on preferences. These roles seperate people and create division amonst homo/hetrosexuals. I know because Bi-sexuals are ostricized by Lesbians and Gays all the time.
  I think you can't really have this conversation without mentioning the queer movement. Anarchists and homosexuals have been in the same fight against the state and all systems of repression for a very long time. Radicals in the LGBT community identify as Queer. They refuse to be subjectified by dominate patriarchial systems. Some anarchists prefer not to identify as hetrosexual (although they are only involved in male/female sexual relations) as a political act of solidarity with the queer community. I would love to see a radical LGBT movement in South Florida.
• 
  

  Crystal Rose  thanks for this post and clarifying the LGBT and Queer movement which i did not mention. i have not known many to identify as Queer, only LGBT (might be because of the communities they were initally involved in). so i'm queer? this is good news! but regardless this was more about the whole poly- multiple partners thing.
• 
  

  Crystal Rose  and me being discriminated against for male/female monogamous relations because i am not open minded.
• Monique  
  

  There is a unified group of radicals in SF that don't like LGBT culture because it assimilates them into an oppressive system, unfortunately I haven't met any radicals in the LGBT scene, but maybe I need to look around more. How you personally approach relationships can change with time. But it doesn't have to change I think for some it is natural to be monagamous. I have found that as I get older the personal becomes political and I find myself becoming more radical. For me monogamy (marriage never!) may happily come at the end of the road when I am too ugly to fuck anyone else. hahahha...

  
  

  
  
• 
  

  Crystal Rose  ha! i think its funny that this whole time i was not identifying with LGBT for the very reason the Queer movement is around...for not being included in the categories created. i am not strictly male/female but i'm not bi...it could change and has changed because i look at people as people - not as a gender, so how could i be bisexual if i could be into a transgender-ed person? i think this type of sexuality is less spoken about and it would be nice if others knew you could just be whatever without having to convert to some sort of label or prove your anti-hetero cultureness

Hetero-normative Culture and the Counter Culture of Polyamory

    Hetero-normative culture is the dominant force in shaping our gender identity and social relationships. There is no question homosexuals are second class citizens legally and socially, and that other self-identifications or sexuality is either taboo or ignored (i.e. bisexuality, trans-sexuality, pansexuality, etc.). The methodology of hetero-normativity comes from idea that marriage is another form of slavery, men owning women as property to fulfill the roles of baby making machines/domestic laborers and its enforcement through outcasting any person who can't/won't perform these roles - socially, economically, and/or politically.  We are force fed these roles early on, which is the main argument for pro-LGBT activists, feminists mainstream and otherwise, polygamists, and people who practice polyamory, a norm in anarchist circles.
    This is my qualm: I am not poly, nor am I supportive of hetero-normative culture, yet often enough, I am called out for being in a monogamous hetero- relationship; for falling prey to the hetero culture hierarchy. Without being defensive, or ridiculing anyone of alternative lifestyles, some people are heterosexual, even us feminist activists. Yes, biologically a woman's natural response is to reproduce, as is a man's, so some of us are straight, and even lesbians like to have fingers, toys, etc. that technically are phallic (although it is not necessary and doesn't make a lesbian bisexual). There are many feminist theorists that claim woman are by nature, bisexual. I don't agree, simply on the grounds I am not opposed to same-sex relations, I have engaged in same sex relations and I didn't care to have them (or not)...on several occasions. Although I am not bisexual, I am not heterosexual, either.
    Can a person receive pleasure from someone of the same sex, enjoy it and not be bi? Yes, considering we can receive pleasure from inanimate objects and not have attraction to them, or have sex with a person you don't particularly have interest in, but get your rocks off (so to speak).
    This is where I think many sexually inexperienced individuals become confused with the idea of bisexuality.  Now, this is not to say that homosexuality or bisexuality is just a made up social construct (like hetero-normativity) but perhaps heterosexuality isn't merely a social construct. I do believe, especially in activist circles or anarchist circles (whom are mostly "alternative") it is common for poly or LGBT folks to be the norm and it is merely because, initially, the type of person to be involved with activism or punk rock (or whatever) are people who don't accept the status quo. They are the type of person who does't want to be fed more bullshit; sexuality is another outlet of that rebellion. This is also the reason why people who just are different than the mainstream norm are attracted to activism or other alternative lifestyles.
    Experimenting is and SHOULD be promoted (bi or poly experimentation), but I think many just label themselves bisexual only because they've kissed someone of the same sex, or hasn't and just wants to be recognized as someone who doesn't support the hetero culture/gender system. So, to some extent, the bisexual club has racked up a significant amount of people who just don't consider same-sex relations taboo who actually act out hetero lifestyles. I also think, in some cases, the idea that it's taboo or wrong to be bi or homosexual or to be poly is the main reason why these lifestyles fulfill people sexually, which is the main reason  why people develop fetishes. For example, a straight man having a woman screw them up the butt with a dildo or a lesbian woman having fantasies about being gang raped by men (these are very common fetishes, actually). In real life, the man would never want to sleep with another a man or the woman may severely oppose rape. Again, I am not proposing that those born gay, trans, intersex, etc. are just bi-products (no pun intended) of the opposition of a hetero culture, but I AM saying that there are a minority of those who consciously choose a poly or bi lifestyle that are.
    As for the poly lifestyle choice, which goes along with unconventional gender identifications, sexual practices and multiple consensual partnerships or relationships, I think some may enjoy this lifestyle and have legitimate reasoning but those who aren't poly aren't just by-products of hetero culture. Especially if you've considered the argument of being forced to be hetero and forced fed the idea of a single marriage long term relationship. Yes, most marriages fail, but I believe its because people don't experiment and are pressured into having one partner at a time with marriage being the end all be all. I don't agree with the eagerness and myth of "the one". I do believe, however, biologically due to the urge of creating children and having a family, people are naturally serial monogamists as seen in many primates. Some people, of course, don't have the urge to settle down, period so they do not want to be monogamous.
    But, let me ask you this: if many men, especially nowadays, want multiple partners or open relationships and many woman don't, is the popularity of poly orientations perpetuated by a culture of woman geared towards pleasing men especially in anarchist circles which are usually predominantly white young men and have traditionally set the intellectual standard due to the gender hierarchy and access to information? This could be because of socially ingrained gender roles, perhaps that aren't inherent, (that woman want a family and men want to fuck around), but it may also be from mainstream gender roles of men wanting as many women as possible (to prove masculinity/prowess), therefore it is a way to coax women. I have seen some manarchists like this and mainstream men like this. I have also been around/with people who practice polyamory that aren't like this.
    I also have to bring up that within the context of marriage being a contractual agreement, where the idea was initially brought up because women were slaves to men, anarcha-feminists like Emma Goldman had a political justification and a personal frustration that was right on taking many partners and breaking that taboo. Nowadays though, people having many partners (i.e. cheating) isn't taboo, it is common. People not wanting to settle down so they can continue having sex with whoever, is common too, so, maybe it's more politically relevant to be with one person and not treat women or men as tools that are simply for sexual gratification?
    When it all boils down, people have the right to chose how they want to live their lives, so don't be hypocrites you open minded anarchists and feminists, let me prefer to be monogamous and not be ridiculed for my natural inclination to have one mate at a time. I do think the ideas above are worthwhile conversation topics but ultimately would be useless to prove, considering no one has been raised beyond gender roles and without social tendencies ingrained by media, parents and school. Just keep in mind, all I am saying, is if heterosexuality can be a social construct why can't other types of sexuality or polyamory be a social construct as well?

The Dichotomies of Consumer Culture

    The most fundamental dichotomy, man/woman, or if you like, day/night, is the basis of modern thought, stemming into religious morality and thus government and rule. Throughout culture, sexism has been persistent. Even the woman-based or goddess based cultures of ancient times were eventually physically put in submission. Patriarchal societies have the upper hand when examining the polarity of feminine/masculine. To this day, in for instance, Feng Shui, the method of balancing one's environment, is based upon Yin-Yang, feminine/masculine, dark/light, night/day. These basic dichotomies are almost universally accepted and become the principal foundation for gender roles.
    At once dualism becomes the structure of collective thought, every concept is divided in two, so day/night becomes light/dark, good/evil, positive/negative. It is easy to see the relationship between day/light/man in ancient culture when the sun was the main focus of worship (sun=son?). This leaves night to represent female whereas night is dark, when the unknown occurs, naturally inspiring fear, longing for daylight. Many children have fear of the dark, vampires, ghosts and nocturnal animals come out at night, making evil interchangeable with night, dark, and female, most noticeably in Western society and religion.
    Upon examining the book of Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve gives much insight into modern association between good/man and evil/woman and the identification of men representing all of humanity. Before Eve, Adam was neither man nor woman, therefore Adam represents all people, i.e. "man kind" not "woman kind". To further reinforce  male superiority and woman inferiority, Eve, is tricked by Satan, i.e. evil, and gets both Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden the beautiful paradise God (a man nonetheless) made. Now, according to Genesis, women suffer painful childbirth for our collective misdeed. This of course is the Judea-Christian religion Western society is built upon, especially the United States, a more recent concoction of religion and state (supposedly separate).
    Religion reinforces the unquestioning of these modes of thought. Religion is one of the main culprits of the evolution of gender roles, why women are submissive and men traditionally the bread-winners. Nowadays, gender-roles have a slightly new configuration after the Woman's Right Movement and politically, on most accounts have equal rights. Equal rights, should not, however, imply overall equality. Women are still fitted into traditional stereotypes of being weaker, still take on domestic roles as well as jobs outside the home, are still paid less than men, and are still objectified through all branches of media. This atmosphere of consumer culture is where more complex dichotomies evolve.
    For instance, we are constantly being advertised and sold products, while watching a weight loss show we are also being shown McDonald's commercials, while watching a cooking show we are being sold diet pills, while looking at anorexic models we are being told "big is beautiful" (then being called either too skinny or too fat), while seeing women run for office we are seeing half-naked women in music videos. These are alot of confusing images, especially for young women. This is a result of the religion/state dichotomy - on one side we have the pure, house maker religious moral side, then the demonized over-sexed pro-women's rights, left. These polarities make it possible for gender roles to be perpetuated and for rifts between other women or feminists to persist over which side to take. Dualism in our thinking patterns makes it black/white as if there is no gray!
    People are politically divided into left/right when, in reality, they are the same people making decisions for whichever company they have sworn allegiance to. Since capitalism is based on the consumer's demand, it is necessary the companies who run our government find a way to please us, or to create demand for their products.
    For example, even if there is no real demand for cheeseburgers there is one created through advertising and other types of psychological manipulation. This is how we have become a brand-based culture and a culture that racks up debt for the newest cars and computers even if we don't need products or can't afford the products. So it becomes necessary to find to the audience to sell to and to box up their characteristics to find a way to reach their vulnerability.  For example, a company needs to sell a new oven cleaner, they have spent millions on animal testing, researching and creating something slightly different than the previous oven cleaner, so to sell it they give deals to stores so it can be sold cheap and also advertise. They figure, who does the oven cleaning in the home? Who is the majority of our audience? Women? Aged 30-50? Are they a parent with a job and busy lifestyle? What do they watch? Oprah, maybe? Soap operas? Therefore they create the right opportunity, during the right time slots have a commercial with a busy mom with alot of things to do, praising how much she enjoys having this fast acting oven cleaner to save her time, then you go to the store remember that catchy jingle and see that it's on sale, then, voila! A company has millions in their pocket and can continue to have political sway.
   This culture makes it possible to continue stereotypes even after the so-called "women's liberation movement". To indulge in this psychological manipulation is indulging in sexism, racism, animal torture, environmental atrocities and political ignorance. Our black/white thinking makes it impossible for our green parties to ever win an election and nearly impossible for individuals to be individual. This why examining the dichotomies persistent in our moral values and political structure become the crux of anarchism and individual liberty. To ignore gender roles, where they stem from and how they persist is going to be the downfall of politics, environment, and freelance information.