Why Feminism is Necessary (Part 1 of Many)...

    Inclusiveness has been a big talk among feminists, a notion that is the most relevant of all the aspects of feminism, in practice and in theory. "Feminism" when said, immediately sends chills down the spines of previously thought "open-minded" individuals, but why? I have heard many of my cohorts say when I just mention "women" and not "men" I am being exclusive. Even in the context of my feminist blog. Interestingly, feminism is felt to be too harsh of a word because the male-bodied people, and those who have been brainwashed by the depiction of feminism in popular media, thanks to Gloria Steinem, immediately think you are trying to make the world into a matriarchy.
    This is NOT radical feminism, especially not anarcha-feminism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism) It is also not my fault there are preconceived notions of what/who feminists are, but it is my duty to change them if it is my goal to accomplish feminism's goal: true equality, especially between males and females.
   There are preconceived notions of everything - you don't see vegetarians changing their name/label because everyone thinks if you are called a vegetarian you should only eat plant material and not cheese. Well, too bad ignorant people who think that, that's just the way it is! There are even people who eat fish and call themselves a vegetarian, which technically you would be a pescatarian, but the point is, just because people who are unaware of the true definition of feminism feel like I should say male and female all the time, doesn't mean I should use a different term for feminism. In fact, it's fucked up. After all these years of using that term, then all of a sudden the p.c. police comes and WHAM! feminism has to be "all-inclusive" - guess what? I hate police, especially the p.c. police and feminism is the practice of inclusiveness, because women are NOT included on the whole.

Here is why:

As a woman I am,
1) constantly cat called when I walk outside, making me feel inferior and generally bad, especially about what I wear, even if it's something unrevealing.

2) pressured to beautify myself, like shaving, wearing makeup, wearing pantyhouse - and I do not always have the luxury of defiance. I could loose my job.

3) constantly sexualized, oh, especially when I am in the middle of discussing intellectual ideas

4) ignored when I speak.

5) scared to walk outside alone at night.

6) walking the line of "too sexy" and "too plain"

7) fed images of women since birth that are unrealistic body types, and made to feel less than worthy if I do not try to follow these ideals.

8) told I need "a man to take care of me" by various people including strangers trying to hit on me and my own mother.

   As for other women, around the world, it is obvious there is not equality. Keep in mind, my experiences are those of a young woman in the United States in South Florida, a pretty liberal area. Woman across the globe are frequent victims of rape, the legal systems do not champion them even in the U.S., they are mutilated in some countries, killed at birth in others, and generally kept in fear in all areas, whether because of backwards religious beliefs or backwards political policies. This is called patriarchy. Women are not represented in government around the world, not just here, and therefore are forced to work 40hrs while pregnant and other mind-blowing atrocities that for some reason men think are the same for them......

   That is why it is called feminism and not called equality-ism or something. Say it with pride, you feminists. Don't blush with embarrassment the same way we've been taught when someone cat calls at us and we are wearing a tank-top. Men - it IS NOT EQUAL. Stop whinning about it, and understand you are not all rapists and no one thinks that, but most men are blissfully unaware bystanders. Feminism exists for a reason. Gah.

 

Male Feminists

    Feminism can come off as discluding or accusatory, even though (anarcha-) feminism's goal is erradication of gender roles and complete equality for all indentities of people - no excpetion. "Feminism" as a term can, admittedly, be misleading especially with the misgivings of the media and misconceptions perpetually fed to us to discourage any questioning of our patriarchal authorties/ systems/ structures, yet due to these misgivings, validates its appropriateness and necesity. Fear over the root "fem", as in "feminity", "feminity", etc., is understandable when you consider this to be the race of men or the human race...women being an afterthought or a secondary priority. Yes, white men are running the show, so the individual man isn't rolling around in wads of dollar bills, but this is a patriarchal economic system constructed and upheld not just by sexist and rascist attitudes but also by discriminating laws that favor adult white males.
    Across the world, radical men are acknowledging the roles they partake in, socially and otherwise, taking a stand to be an ally for women and no longer excepting passivity as the only alternative. Radical male feminists (I love saying that!) recognize their priveldge as men, and therefore the necesity to have men, not just women, speaking out against these injustices. Not only does it give men an opportunity to educate other men they know about simulated (or real) violence in pornography, how women are consistently spoken to or ignored, but also provides a male-only space to speak about experiences as men, how they cope with being looked as perpetraters of violence, guilt and numerious other issues that women could be insensitive to or unable to understand. One example is the relationship with violence young boys develop, which is drasctically different from the relationship to violence that young girls experience, which is usally being a victim and (hopefully) removed from violence all together in the name of being a proper young lady.
    Many issues that are brought up in these groups include, when or how is it appropriate to vocalize feminist opinions without becoming a male hero for women's rights, is it okay to tell another man to back off when he's hitting on a woman, and how to connect with other radical feminists groups to learn their issues, boundaries, etc. To see men start actively changing their roles as men, is a huge step for feminism. How else to stop the war against women than to stop the roots of violence within men? I encourage men that consider themselves champions of equality and merely say they're feminists to start a group like this, and implement co-counseling for the psychological tramuas of gender, captialism, and violence. Acknowledging our roles is one step towards equality, but we also need to heal, and create pathways for a future of true freedom and equality....

For more info you can contact me throught my email. 

Dispelling Those Anti-feminist Myths

   Feminism has been dubbed as "micro" politics; merely a personal plight for social freedoms with secondary relevance to economic revolutions, animal rights, anti-war picketing and environmental concerns.  The entire idea of "micro" and "macro", not just its meaning in the political sense, is a made up construction based out patriarchal notions and political obstructions. Keeping a divide of more important, so-called "broader" issues and "lesser" issues like racism, trans-activism and feminism (although not limited to) lessens the focus on local community based issues, which are typically more effective, and more often than not fails to acknowledge the plights and concerns of other groups of individuals that have different immediate issues. Just the idea of equality-based activism being "micro" is an example of its necessity at least in social terms, but most definitely is a unifying principle of any anarchist issue.     
    Typical excuses of not acknowledging feminism in anarchism include (but are not limited to):
(1) Revolution! If there's decentralized government than there will be no more discrimination based on gender or class. Yeah, because before government was invented, there was no sexism or labor division, in fact it was all sunshine and rainbows... give me a break!
(2) Class discrimination is the more fundamental root of our problems. So if there was successful socialism men would magically stop abusing women around the world.
(3) Men are just as exploited as women. Ok, thats's why I see all these men in bikinis selling me liquor. Also explains why there are so many women representing one sided political concerns in office.
(4) Gender roles do not exist. I don't even have sarcasm for that one!
(5) Women and people of minorities have the same chance as anyone to speak or get jobs or receive affordable housing. That's why there are SO many CEOs of minority and non-hetero sexualities. Also why poor white men resort to sex work or other degrading activities to feed their children.
(6) Animals don't abuse people, women do!

So, next time when you're having a meeting and you can't get your point across, just remember how women are so equal to men and that you should quit complaining.

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.   

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