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.

Do I Look Fat In This?

    I have been reading an interesting book about the psychology of the fat/skinny dynamic in women's lives called Fat Is A Feminist Issue (authored by Susie Orbach), that poignantly describes many women's desires to beautiful and judged by their body, how they are scared to actually fulfill this goal and how to overcome these expectations. Her focus is not eradication of fat through diet or making one feel bad about being fat, and neither does she judgmentally put her own notion of what 'fat' is; the women have already decided they feel fat or overeat, (or in some cases are skinny and overeat/binge), then has them assess their true feelings about why they want to be 'skinny' in the first place.
    She helps them pinpoint what sort of fantasy they have about skinniness - which is almost always synonymous with attractiveness - being more outgoing, more successful, etc. while the patients themselves figure out what originally made them form these expectations they prevent themselves from fulfilling. She never suggests for them her analysis, that is just commentary for the reader, or tries to shove in their face a political theory about gender roles (although upon the patient discussing their expectations of 'skinny', the patient comes to that conclusion themselves by their own reasoning). Through discovering the the unfulfilled desires of themselves, their potential, obligations and goals have all come from their complex relationship with their mothers, which of course, manifests within food.
    For readers this may sound metaphoric, though it is symbolic, but our notions of love and family revolve around food, especially the mother, so daughters and mothers have a unique relationship based around food consumption and preparation. Not only does your mother breast feed you, which is your first knowledge and direct experience of love, but the milk itself also has an opiate-like effect on the brain (which all dairy does) that makes you feel close, even euphoric. Upon being fed, with your cries being answered, you find relief and satisfaction. Then, later on in life, it is your mother who makes the family meals, prepares lunch for you, teaches you how to bake, gives you food to feel better. Of course this book was written in the late 70s, so it's possible that your mother wasn't the only one making meals, but considering gender roles, that's beside the point.
    Since these are women in a changing world striving for something more than their mothers (aren't we all), they are really asking for help the only way they have ever been taught how to resolve problems - with food. I recommend anyone with an unbalanced relationship with food to read this, and being an anti-diet book, it's about making you feel comfortable with however you are healthiest. I just want to post some images that I've seen recently on the internet that really make this book a valuable read -

    Maybe you've heard about this "controversy", but Lady Gaga is being critiSIZED for gaining  (according to her) 30 pounds or so. Not only did she come out as formerly being bulimic, but people online are actually asking "Is she fat?". They don't even know! But, the question is, does she deserve the publicity considering her job is being half-naked and objectifying herself? Either way, despite if she's healthy, over-weight, or underweight, the clothes she wears are crazy, and this certainly isn't a flattering outfit.

    This is the Miley Cyrus picture that triggered everyone to start calling her anorexic. So not only if you gain weight a small amount of weight you are fat, but if you actualize the skinny ideal you are anorexic. She's a young girl with the pressures of her Hollywood career, obviously just coming from yoga or the gym or something, and gets railed on. She's thin, but not dangerously so. Wasn't she just sized up last year for gaining weight? Isn't this what everyone wanted?

    This is the picture that popped up under "Miley Cyrus fat", which apparently is a popular search. Really?

    Since Kelly Osbourne has lost her dirty mouth fat girl image, she is now on a style network show where she makes fun of how celebrities dress. Nice. Now that she has her skinny goal reached, she has the authority to call Christina Aguilera fat because she years ago made fun of Kelly. Ironic. By looking at the Christina pictures from her Genie In A Bottle days, she obviously has drastic weight fluctuations, which indicates extreme dieting, which along with having a baby probably destroyed her metabolism. Although, I am not a doctor. True or not, it's wrong and painful to make statements like that and insensitive coming from someone who felt the same criticism.

    This is the hottest celebrity right now, the ideal beauty. From some sources they claim she eats only 600 calories a day, which according to the clinical definition of anorexica nervosa, classifies her as anorexic, if this is true. How many people do you know that think she's hot, or aspire to be her?

    Have you heard of pro-anorexia sites? This is one of the first images under the search "Thinspiration", commonly known to frequenters of these sites as thinspo. This is a women named Felice Fawn, I'm guessing a model of some type which women who have body obsession look up to look like.


    With these images, for disbelievers of pressure and gender roles, I'm sure you can at least conclude women, more so than men, have a dysfunctional relationship with their bodies which would obviously have something to do with food. Without getting into an anarchist perspective, I believe it's obvious what social roles that are enforced by laws and regulations along with media which, is one of the main tools of oppression of capitalism, has everything to do with these disturbing notions of beauty, self, and celebrity. But I just have to ask, does this blog make me look fat?

Failure of Revolution

     For those who believe merely recognizing gender roles and sexism in our society is counteracting patriarchy, please reconsider how (despite our protests) we are still products of a patriarchal society. No one would ever suggest simply recognizing the faults of a global economy is sufficient enough to oppose its oppression, then continually engage in free market capitalism (either as a consumer or a capitalist). As with both examples, which of course illustrates patriarchal globalization from the perspective of social relations enforcing pre-existing systems of sexist institutions (which of course then reinforces our personal behaviors)...there is a deep psychological manipulation used through economic and social means that condition every person based on a role we are programmed to believe we are destined to play. Meaning, experiencing and/or seeing the injustices of patriarchy (or globalization) and ethically opposing it in theory only deprogram our faith in these systems, which does not necessarily change the conditioning we've experienced up until that point. We no longer believe it's our destiny to play the games of the government but we've still been conditioned to fulfill certain roles.
    Our habits and tendencies are much harder to break than it is to simply change our beliefs, which only takes a thought. Taking action, like to actually stop biting your nails, requires will-power and many times of falling back into the same pattern before your actions match up with your thoughts, which already oppose biting your nails. Essentially, with changing our daily habits, like when we decide to dumpster or grow our own food than shop at the supermarket, or patch up our pants rather than buy a new pair, we are rerouting our brain's pathways and discovering new routes to go about the same situations (i.e. coming up with a different coping mechanism when experiencing mild anxiety rather than biting your nails).
    Our pre-existing habits and social behaviors is why anarchists, during meetings, purposely make room for women to speak. The behaviors we've accumulated allows a social dynamic of, for instance, men being more comfortable speaking and listened to when being vocal which enables women to be less inclined to speak out and opinions less respected. This is the process of eliminating hierarchy through changing our habits.
    It seems as though every time I am at a social gathering, whether anarchist related or not, not only do people talk past me to my boyfriend (as if I am not there)  but then unwittingly, he continues the cycle by leaving me no room to speak, and by no means am I a shy or quiet person! Yet, there I am staring at my feet hoping for a gap in the conversation where they may or may not hear me due to the mere rapidness and exclusion of their conversation. It makes sense that there is no need for my input considering my boyfriend uses the words "we" and "us" to sum up my experiences, as if he is my spokesperson and I feel awkward bringing up topics that are out of context, as if I can't help but be a secondary conversation partaker. Why, as well, do I fixate on gaining a couple pounds when I am aware of the crisis of eating disorders and oppose this consumer driven society that treats women as objects? The only logical conclusion would be that these are knee jerk reactions.
    Most of us aren't "good" anarchists; "good" meaning up to our ideal standards of what anarchism opposes/stands up for. The failures of our attempted revolutions, as with Occupy, is the unwillingness to reconcile our behaviors to match our beliefs. I expect liberals to bring take-out to the Occupations, but the anarchists...doing drugs, drinking PBRs (as if drugs and alcohol aren't already the reason for failed revolutions)...it's a hypocrisy we are all guilty of (to some degree) but we have the obligation to be the counter-point to these liberals. It's not radical to support large corporations or fund wars due to opiate addiction. What, in fact, is the difference between Chinese take-out and PBRs? At least with the take out you probably aren't supporting a large chain and also putting a little change in a family's pocket.
    It is understandable to feel pressured by this society of greed and oppression, especially as anarchists, but it's not understandable to play into ignorance out of pride. We should recognize our behaviors and hypocrisies as individuals and attempt to change them. Look at the sophistication of television advertisements, enticing us with bright colors, sounds and key words they know from research will peak our interest. Companies are constantly conducting experiments on willing participants (unwilling depending on your point of view) to find ways to draw us in based on our biology and psychology. They know what colors make us angry or excited, and how to make a jingle that can't get out of our heads. I can't even look away from HD, it just looks so cool, and I don't even know what I am watching half the time, because my brain's pleasure receptors are being stroked so efficiently. Pulling ourselves away becomes a constant struggle living in civilization.        
    There are similar problems with the post-left anarchists who believe we are beyond labels, yet, how can you be beyond patriarchy by just refusing to acknowledge it's existence and not using the ideas and terminology to examine your behaviors? This is why I meet men who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy exists and the same reason why even though we know oil funds war, many of us end up at the dealership ready to purchase a car... already prepared with excuses to defend your decision... because it's convenient. Ethical decisions, I assure you, are usually not convenient. This is also why so many people are against the Anti-Civ folks. It's not impossible to live sustainably with the environment, off the grid and rewild - it's just people are afraid. Bugs, storms, diseases (most which would be eliminated outside of civilization), not having all the foods they love; people are dependent on the concrete structures to protect them from their fears that have been instilled since birth. Most people would honestly,  based on their tendencies and habits, stay within capitalism, even when they hate it, based on a laundry list of excuses and quotes from dead white men who hoped technology would save humanity.
   Revolutions fail only because we prevent ourselves from succeeding. We are a society based on realism instead of idealism, which traps us into being "flywheels on the ram-shackle machinery of the awful truth" (Kurt Vonnegut). We intellectualize things to a point of falling back into our Babylonian prison cell. Sometimes we are duped into thinking we're making a difference  and then you look around you and notice your in a group of white males 20-25 talking about minority issues when who knows if any of these people personally knows one person of color. We must witness our hypocrisies and become willing to fix them with the support of our anarchist friends and not shoot down everyone who has a slightly different theory. I do think that within time, people will abandon the old anarchist syndicalist ways and become open minded to the possibilities of life not dependent on technology, which can only quicken the pace of the world's demise.
   Revolutions take place, first, within yourself. That is the main reason why Occupy countered any attempts at mass uprising, because it tamed anarchists to work within mainstream politics. Radicals failed to differentiate themselves from liberals, due to the bureaucracy of large scale consensus, although it is effective in small groups. As soon as Occupy clearly became a reformist movement about better banking and so on, anarchists should have broken up, back into our smaller groups, and took the opportunity while Occupy was still making headlines to start a counter-Occupy movement. Yet, because our theories do not sync up with our actual practice, many of us were drawn into the game of democratic process and trying to convince middle class people how to go about effective direct action (to no avail).
    There is no solidarity between anarchists which leads us into petty discussions about theoretical points instead of looking at practicality and possibility. For instance, though anarcho-primitivisim  is heavily criticized,( in my opinion for an individual's co-dependency with civilization and fear of nature) you will find a fear of feminism. Expecting the effects of patriarchal civilization to magically dissipate into a peaceful feral community, would be to expect HIStorical and archeological evidence to be accurate, which, of course, is doctored and shaped by the society in which we live. This is not to create an argument about whether or not hunter-gatherer societies held the platform for hierarchy (which it quite probably did considering here we are now) but more so to acknowledge the influences this society already conditioned us with, and to hold out the possibility that maybe the Unabomber had a point. The validity and necessity of primitivisim should not be dependent on whether or not natives were peaceful or at times violent. This is petty arguing, and the reality is, to leave rewilding (which in actuality would take generations to fully realize) the hefty task of eliminating patriarchy based on faith of someone's research instead of taking extra precaution to create a genderless society (specifically in regards to division of labor)  would be ignorant of the current attitudes of individuals and their cultural influences. If on the other hand, people applied these theories instead of debating with words we would see in practice if in fact it is necessary to make genderless equality an issue at the forefront instead of relying on what we were told worked for Tribe A or Tribe B.
    Close-mindedness, from liberals to red/green/black anarchists among themselves, is our only detriment and keeps us DE-radicalized. The very premise for anarchism is that we've been conditioned to believe we need leaders, and as we all know reading this, that is a lie, that  before  in theory leaders were believed  necessary until put into practice otherwise. Upon having the opportunity to say what we've been dying to let the mainstream media know, we cowardly watered ourselves down for the liberals and therefore played right into the hands of our big, mean government machine. Revolutions aren't futile, but with the Occupy let down, it will be difficult for another mass movement, and perhaps different tactics are in order. For now, I say unity, small collectives, and groups is, at the current time, the only counter-point to the oppression we experience in the United States, so working on ways to deviate from the capitalist system should be number one priority. Hopefully others will see the possibilities of our own creations once we stop dividing ourselves and mend our hypocrisies. The failure of revolution? Our own thoughts left over from our pre-anarchist days.

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.
 

 

       
    

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.